Meanwhile, Huckabee has a 12 point lead in Iowa

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:37 pm

This guy wasn't even a blip on the screen a couple of months ago, and now it looks like he's the one with all the momentum less than a month before the first primary.

Seems he's a skillful speaker and gaining much support from the Christian Evangelical right wing of the party which, like it or not, makes up about 40% of the rebublican base. No candidate gets nominated w/o the support of this crucial block of voters. Romney and Guilliani had best be very concerned about this former Arkansas governor. Not like there's any precedent set there or anything, just from a different party.

Now that he's turning into a serious contender, I'm sure that all the skeletons will start coming out of the closet to be freshly examined. Seriously though, I think this guy might be seen as the Republicans best chance to keep the White House. I don't see any other GOP frontrunner at this point being able to stem the Democratic tide against either Billary or the Baromma-oprah-momma ticket.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:22 pm

The fact that he wanted to quarantine people with AIDS might come up during an election.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:27 pm

I'd settle for a quarantine of KC GreaseTrap's posts to TROTS.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:40 pm

Well lookee here, Martard the braindead Canuck sees fit to comment on American presidential politics with a pitiful attempt at smack.

GFY, junior.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:48 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:The fact that he wanted to quarantine people with AIDS might come up during an election.

It should help. But it won't be enough for him to win.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:12 pm

War Wagon wrote:Well lookee here, Martard the braindead Canuck sees fit to comment on American presidential politics with a pitiful attempt at smack.

Why not. Your goofball, lowest-common-denominator, county-fair raffle style of elections make it so easy.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:36 pm

Small wonder the thumpers are getting behind the man who said "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

I can hardly wait to see his sound bite on evolution playing in a continuous loop this coming fall.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:52 pm

BSmack wrote:Small wonder the thumpers are getting behind the man who said "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.".

Of course by 'we' he is refering to the Church, not the government.

Not that you would take comments out of context or anything...

SALT LAKE CITY — Government may have dropped the ball in modern American society, but religion dropped it first, Gov. Mike Huckabee told Southern Baptist pastors Sunday night.
“The reason we have so much government is because we have so much broken humanity,” he said. “And the reason we have so much broken humanity is because sin reigns in the hearts and lives of human beings instead of the Savior.”
Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, addressed his contemporaries at the two-day Pastors’ Conference, which continues today. The three-day Southern Baptist Convention begins Tuesday here in the heartland of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the city in which the Mormons have their world headquarters.
Huckabee told the pastors gathered in the Salt Palace Convention Center that while the March 1, 1997, tornadoes which struck Arkansas were tragic, at least the devastation could be clearly seen from a helicopter. In contrast, he said, the catalysts for the nation’s recent school shootings — including the one March 24 near Jonesboro that left four students and a teacher dead and 10 others wounded — were harder to see but were driven by “the winds of spiritual change in a nation that has forgotten its God.”
“Government knows it does not have the answer, but it’s arrogant and acts as though it does,” Huckabee said. “Church does have the answer but will cowardly deny that it does and wonder when the world will be changed.”
The shootings were just one more wake-up call to the nation, he said.
“I fear we will turn and hit the snooze button one more time and lose this great republic of ours.”
Huckabee said ungiving individuals are responsible for higher taxes.
“I’m often asked why taxes are so high and government is so big. It’s because the faith we have in local churches has become so small. If we’d been doing what we should have — giving a dime from every dollar to help the widows, the orphans and the poor — we now wouldn’t be giving nearly 50 cents of every dollar to a government that’s doing … what we should have been doing all along.”
Huckabee also explained why he left pastoring for politics.
“I didn’t get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.”
He compared his entry into politics to “getting inside the dragon’s belly,” adding, “There’s not one thing we can do in those marbled halls and domed capitols that can equal what’s done when Jesus touches the lives of a sinner.”
The most basic unit of government is not the city council, quorum court or state legislature, Huckabee said. “It is Mom and Dad raising kids and teaching them respect for authority, others and God.”
The nation has descended gradually into crisis, Huckabee said, and repairing the damage needs to be gradual, too. He said the solution is simple: faith in Christ.
Huckabee recalled the five occasions he’s had to sit by the phone on the eve of an execution.
“It’s the greatest sense of helplessness and despair you can imagine to know we’ve exhausted all help and hope here on earth for that person.”
He also spoke of his early misconceptions of his duties as a pastor.
“In one of the first churches I was assigned to, I thought I was supposed to be the captain of a warship leading the congregation into a battle against spiritual darkness,” he said.
“But they wanted the captain of the Love Boat. They just wanted everybody to be happy. It was not about how many people were won to Christ or how many teens were pulled away from drugs or how many marriages were saved. Instead, it was about the seniors having a great trip going to watch the fall leaves change, the teen-agers going to a better summer camp than the church across town.”
Huckabee concluded his speech by recalling his 10th birthday, when he accepted Christ.
“I went to Vacation Bible School for all the wrong reasons — I was told they’d give me all the cookies I could eat and all the Kool-Aid I could drink. But that day I got something better than cookies and Kool-Aid. I got the Savior.
“I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.”

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:00 pm

BSmack wrote:Small wonder the thumpers are getting behind the man who said "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."

I can hardly wait to see his sound bite on evolution playing in a continuous loop this coming fall.

Relax, dude. Remember, Dubya's administration was supposed to be all about God 'n stuff too.

First he'll...

...and then he'll...

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:00 pm

If you answered no to this question, you're not qualified to be President of the United States.

[video width=425 height=355]http://www.youtube.com/v/t4Cc8t3Zd5E&rel=1[/video]

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:01 pm

Martyred wrote:Relax, dude. Remember, Dubya's administration was supposed to be all about God 'n stuff too.

Sorry, I can't afford another 4 years of this crap.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:04 pm

Tough shit, loser. President Mitt Romney. Deal with it.

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:08 pm

Diogenes wrote:Tough shit, loser. President Mitt Romney. Deal with it.

I laughed. Hard.

I still think there will be a "draft Jeb" movement within the Republican Party before it's all said and done. Unless they plan on punting in '08, that is.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:16 pm

Not a chance in hell. If there is any 'draft', it will be Newt.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:22 pm

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote: Unless they plan on punting in '08, that is.
Take a good long look at the moronic fuck ups your party is wheeling out. The GOP can (and probably will) run a sock puppet and mop you up.

That's true.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:33 pm

mvscal wrote:Take a good long look at the moronic fuck ups your party is wheeling out. The GOP can (and probably will) run a sock puppet and mop you up.

I'll bet not a one of the current Democratic candidates wanted to quarantine AIDS patients.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_ ... kabee_aids

Of course now Huckabee is furiously flip flopping all over the issue. You would think that being homosexual, he would have been better informed.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:54 pm

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:Take a good long look at the moronic fuck ups your party is wheeling out. The GOP can (and probably will) run a sock puppet and mop you up.
I'll bet not a one of the current Democratic candidates wanted to quarantine AIDS patients.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_ ... kabee_aids

Of course now Huckabee is furiously flip flopping all over the issue. You would think that being homosexual, he would have been better informed.

How original.

Diogenes wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:The fact that he wanted to quarantine people with AIDS might come up during an election.
It should help. But it won't be enough for him to win.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:55 pm

Diogenes wrote:
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:Take a good long look at the moronic fuck ups your party is wheeling out. The GOP can (and probably will) run a sock puppet and mop you up.
I'll bet not a one of the current Democratic candidates wanted to quarantine AIDS patients.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071208/ap_ ... kabee_aids

Of course now Huckabee is furiously flip flopping all over the issue. You would think that being homosexual, he would have been better informed.
How original.

Nah, he's flip flopped on a whole lot of issues.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:57 pm

BSmack wrote: Nah, he's flip flopped on a whole lot of issues.

Which candidate hasn't?

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:04 pm

Hillary. You can't flip flop if you're on both sides of every issue from the start.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:29 pm

What a name for a President...

HuckaBee!!
*********************
I have a friend who is a Democratic voter and he favors Huckabee.
I am not a Democratic voter. I vote Independent but favor the Conservatives.
However,
I would choose Huckabee over Hilary if that were my only choice.
I just don't see him having a shot.
Yes, Chuck Norris will help boost his ratings, slightly.
BUT
For the Dems, right now, it's Hillary followed by the long shot, Obama!!

How about, Al??

Is Al Gore going to enter the Race??

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Former Vice President Al Gore denied again that there were any campaign plans in his immediate future, but told CNN Monday that he hadn't "ruled out getting back into the political process at some point" — and that if he did return to political life, it would be to take another shot at the White House.
The Nobel Peace Prize laureate, speaking from the Oslo site of Monday's awards ceremony, told CNN's Jonathan Mann that he didn't expect to ever get back in the political process, but that "if I did get back, it would be as a candidate for president."

He did not endorse any of the current Democratic candidates for president, and did not respond directly to a question about his view of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's environmental policy proposals.

He added that "the political system as it now operates makes it very difficult" for any of the current crop of candidates to make climate change issues a top priority.

I see Gore as the only legitimate opponent to Hillary on the Democratic ticket (IF he were to run).
-Yes, there are other qualified Dems. Huckabee seems to be qualified but I don't think he is POPULAR enough.

Do you think Al will enter the race?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:36 pm

Jack wrote:I have a friend who is a Democratic voter and he favors Huckabee.

Your friend is an idiot.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:42 pm

BSmack wrote:
Jack wrote:I have a friend who is a Democratic voter and he favors Huckabee.
Your friend is an idiot.

Well, he’d have to be to claim Jack as a friend.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:05 pm

BSmack wrote:
Jack wrote:I have a friend who is a Democratic voter....
Your friend is an idiot.

That goes without saying.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:04 pm

Those were some incredible comebacks!!

Most of you were able to complete a full sentence!!

I didn't think you were capable!!

EXCELLENT!!

Just like your teachers always told you!

You are SPECIAL!!

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:18 pm

BSmack wrote:If you answered no to this question, you're not qualified to be President of the United States.

Why? Is that the current litmus test?

Well pardon moi, but I don't think one's belief or lack thereof in the theory of evolution either qualifies or disqualifies a person from being President.

Personally, I want a man in the job who knows that there is a God, and that he's not him.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:32 pm

War Wagon wrote:Why? Is that the current litmus test?

Well pardon moi, but I don't think one's belief or lack thereof in the theory of evolution either qualifies or disqualifies a person from being President.

It's one of many litmus tests I will be applying this election. If you can't accept the truth behind Darwin's science, you don't deserve to be President. Even a little 4th Tier Liberal Arts college in Springfield knows better than that.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:40 pm

BSmack wrote:
War Wagon wrote:Why? Is that the current litmus test?

Well pardon moi, but I don't think one's belief or lack thereof in the theory of evolution either qualifies or disqualifies a person from being President.
It's one of many litmus tests I will be applying this election. If you can't accept the truth behind Darwin's science, you don't deserve to be President. Even a little 4th Tier Liberal Arts college in Springfield knows better than that.

One can recognize the truth behind Darwin's science and the lies behind his acolytes' dogma.

Besides, nobody you would vote for is going to end up in the White House anyway.

Again.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:05 am

BSmack wrote: It's one of many litmus tests I will be applying this election.

Really? What others are you saving up?

If you can't accept the truth behind Darwin's science, you don't deserve to be President.

Interesting. Has this always been the case? Darwin's theories...err, science have been around for quite some time, yes? But for some reason, now this is a big issue?

And you know, I never really ever considered any presidential candidate on the basis of whether they deserved it or not. Frankly, with all the shit they have to put with, I don't think anybody deserves that amount of aggravation. Maybe we look at the job differently.

Even a little 4th Tier Liberal Arts college in Springfield knows better than that.

Why Bri, I do believe this Huckabee fellow is making you nervous.

And trust me on this one, the faculty and students at Evangel University are solidly behind this guy. Just talked to my daughter yesterday and asked her if she was paying attention yet. Dumb question. She talked my ear off for about an hour afterwards.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:44 am

War Wagon wrote:
And trust me on this one, the faculty and students at Evangel University are solidly behind this guy. Just talked to my daughter yesterday and asked her if she was paying attention yet. Dumb question. She talked my ear off for about an hour afterwards.

I think we are all familiar with the wet bag of foam chips that is your daughters "finely honed intellectual acumen".

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:26 am

No, as usual, you don't know shit and are feverishly trying to reinforce that notion.

Look Martard, I'm asking nicely. If you don't have something of substance to add to the discussion other than your patented ignorance, then kindly fuck off. TIA.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:32 am

War Wagon wrote:And trust me on this one, the faculty and students at Evangel University are solidly behind this guy.

Along with some random male prostitute.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:40 am

Goober McTuber wrote:
War Wagon wrote:And trust me on this one, the faculty and students at Evangel University are solidly behind this guy.
Along with some random male prostitute.

Link?

But I'm not surprised that even male prostitutes are smarter than you.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:01 am

Diogenes wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
War Wagon wrote:And trust me on this one, the faculty and students at Evangel University are solidly behind this guy.
Along with some random male prostitute.
Link?

Ask Santa for a sense of humor.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:40 am

War Wagon wrote:
BSmack wrote:It's one of many litmus tests I will be applying this election.
Really? What others are you saving up?

Well, next up is eliminating anyone who buys into the lies of Joseph Smith.

After that I'll eliminate anyone unwilling to repudiate their vote for the war on Iraq. That is, assuming they were foolish enough to buy into the hype in the first place.

Interesting. Has this always been the case? Darwin's theories...err, science have been around for quite some time, yes? But for some reason, now this is a big issue?

It's always been the case with me. The first time I actually had to invoke that rule in my lifetime was with Chimpy.

And you know, I never really ever considered any presidential candidate on the basis of whether they deserved it or not. Frankly, with all the shit they have to put with, I don't think anybody deserves that amount of aggravation. Maybe we look at the job differently.

Obviously we do. If the job "aggravates" you, then don't sign up.

Why Bri, I do believe this Huckabee fellow is making you nervous.

And trust me on this one, the faculty and students at Evangel University are solidly behind this guy. Just talked to my daughter yesterday and asked her if she was paying attention yet. Dumb question. She talked my ear off for about an hour afterwards.

I'm sure they're four square behind Huckabee. Yet another reason I'll be looking elsewhere. But rest assured that I hope the GOP buys into the snake oil Huckabee is selling. You put that nutter on the ticket and he'll trash the GOP's chances.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:23 am

BSmack wrote: I'm sure they're four square behind Huckabee. Yet another reason I'll be looking elsewhere. But rest assured that I hope the GOP buys into the snake oil Huckabee is selling. You put that nutter on the ticket and he'll trash the GOP's chances.

It's a given you'd be looking elsewhere. You're as allergic to republicans as I am to democrats, and don't try selling me any "snake oil" that says different.

"Nutter" trash the GOP's chances? Quite the contrary from my perspective thus far. Admittedly, I haven't looked closely at any of these guys yet, but it seems to me that both Romney and Guilliani are unelectable. I'm not sold on Huckabee yet, either. It's time for me to start paying closer attention to what each actually stand for.

We shall see. Should be an interesting next 11 months or so. I know that you thrive on this stuff, and quite appreciate reading your opinions in a "know thine enemy" sense.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:35 am

Anyone who raised their hand there is a clueless 'tard.
Microevolution is a FACT.
If you don't believe in it you are in denial of reality.

Great yob, Huckster.

If the question had been asked specifically about MACROevolution it would be a different story.

A Huckabee presidency would be a complete disaster.

The repugnican version of Jimmah Carter.

jmo

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:38 pm

War Wagon wrote:
BSmack wrote:If you answered no to this question, you're not qualified to be President of the United States.
Why? Is that the current litmus test?

Well pardon moi, but I don't think one's belief or lack thereof in the theory of evolution either qualifies or disqualifies a person from being President.

A minimal litmus test I would employ is that a President should have a certain minimal level of intelligence (btw, the current President fails this). Any person who rejects evolution lacks the minimal level of intelligence needed to be President as well.

Personally, I want a man in the job who knows that there is a God, and that he's not him.

W also fails this test, fwiw. At least the second part.

mvscal wrote:Take a good long look at the moronic fuck ups your party is wheeling out. The GOP can (and probably will) run a sock puppet and mop you up.

Either Obama or Edwards beats any Republican candidate in a head-to-head matchup, at least based on current polls. As long as the Democrats don't do something extremely stupid (read: nominate Hillary), this election is theirs.

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:09 pm

The problem is the bible tumpers in the south and midwest are very strong and the Christian issue this go around like the one we had in '04 with gay marriage is going to be ID vs Evolution. Unfortunately, debating this is nonsense because the closemindedness of these ID supporters will once again make it a too close to call race between the Donks and the Elephants. Until the baby boomers die, dems will always be in a shootout with the Christian nation.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:53 pm

RumpleForeskin wrote:like the one we had in '04 with gay marriage

There was only one correct answer to that whole debate, regardless which side of the fence anyone was on...

"Show me which part of the Constitution grants the fed any rights to regulate marriage?"

Ask those questions of people running for state government -- that's a states'-rights issue.