Any Redskins Fans think Huckabee is a good choice for president???

[PleaseBlitz]

Great thread: Whack job, "F" him, screw him.

Interesting to see once again where the hostility comes from. Not Christians. :2cents:

Threatening to scrap the Constitution in favor of the bible will evoke a passionate response everytime.

[Teller]

Threatening to scrap the Constitution in favor of the bible will evoke a passionate response everytime.

A bit of an exaggeration, don't ya think?

I'd settle for limiting the Establishment Clause to what it was intended for. Pretty hard to mistake "Congress shall make no law," IMO. But I know, being OK with a manger in the town square makes me a religious fanatic.

[10fttall]

Scoring a perceived backing of the Christians has been a major victory for Huckabee. Most of them probably have no idea what he really stands for. They are just gullible enough to hear that this guy is an evangelical Christian and fall in love. Most are not pragmatic enough to realize that even Bible believing Christians can have stupid political ideas and a liberal record. Of course the Media is not going to discourage the perception of Huckabee as "hard right." What better way to elect a liberal than to have him perceived as one of the most conservative?

If he turns out to be the nominee, I guess he would be marginally better than the dem. option.

[prophet]

Scoring a perceived backing of the Christians has been a major victory for Huckabee. Most of them probably have no idea what he really stands for. They are just gullible enough to hear that this guy is an evangelical Christian and fall in love. Most are not pragmatic enough to realize that even Bible believing Christians can have stupid political ideas and a liberal record. Of course the Media is not going to discourage the perception of Huckabee as "hard right." What better way to elect a liberal than to have him perceived as one of the most conservative?

If he turns out to be the nominee, I guess he would be marginally better than the dem. option.

and black people just vote for Obama, Mormons for vote Romney, old people vote for McCain, rudy gets the gay republican vote, and Hillary gets the woman vote. It's not just those dumb christias... I guess most candidates get the "gullible" vote.

I guess you get stupidness in every camp.

[PleaseBlitz]

A bit of an exaggeration, don't ya think?

I'd settle for limiting the Establishment Clause to what it was intended for. Pretty hard to mistake "Congress shall make no law," IMO. But I know, being OK with a manger in the town square makes me a religious fanatic.

I dont know if its an exaggeration. He said he believes "its a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God and thats what we need to do is to amend the Constitution...."

That scares everyone that doesnt put religion in front of all other issues. Huckabee shot his campaign in the junk with that little soundbite.

[prophet]

A bit of an exaggeration, don't ya think?

I'd settle for limiting the Establishment Clause to what it was intended for. Pretty hard to mistake "Congress shall make no law," IMO. But I know, being OK with a manger in the town square makes me a religious fanatic.

Most the claims in this thread is exaggerated. :2cents:

[Teller]

Scoring a perceived backing of the Christians has been a major victory for Huckabee. Most of them probably have no idea what he really stands for. They are just gullible enough to hear that this guy is an evangelical Christian and fall in love. Most are not pragmatic enough to realize that even Bible believing Christians can have stupid political ideas and a liberal record. Of course the Media is not going to discourage the perception of Huckabee as "hard right." What better way to elect a liberal than to have him perceived as one of the most conservative?

If he turns out to be the nominee, I guess he would be marginally better than the dem. option.

10fttall? That brush you're painting with is a 1000ft wide.

[twa]

Huck will find the going a bit rougher down south I believe.

You might note the drop between Iowa and SC in support from evangelicals,which I believe will continue.

He attempts to blame Fred for his loss,but I think there is more to it than that.

Florida will clarify many things.

But I admit I am biased against a God called minister running for office(but I ain't alone among evangelicals.)

[GibbsFactor]

and black people just vote for Obama, Mormons for vote Romney, old people vote for McCain, rudy gets the gay republican vote, and Hillary gets the woman vote. It's not just those dumb christias... I guess most candidates get the "gullible" vote.

I guess you get stupidness in every camp.

Not every camp.

[prophet]

Not every camp.

Got me!

errrr and loonies are for Ron Paul. :laugh:

[10fttall]

10fttall? That brush you're painting with is a 1000ft wide.

Well, we're talking about a national race and a large segment of the population counted as the "Christian Right." I don't know each one personally, so yes, I guess you could classify it as a wide brush. I do know that polls have shown a good chunk of support for Huckabee among Christians. And I do know the rising prevailing public perception is of him as the Christian candidate. Therefore, the logical conclusion is to state they probably have fallen for the hype and are supporting "Rev. Huckabee" rather than thoroughly examining his record.

The alternate choice is to assume everyone has done their homework and that the Christian Right has been waiting all their lives for a candidate who is a fiscal liberal and pro-illegal immigration. Now I haven't been everywhere, but I have been around Christian circles in a number of states, and I have serious doubts that's the case.

The problem is that they are shooting themselves in the foot with Huckabee. Having an Evangelical Christian President is not going to magically end abortion/gay marriage/and whatever else they are thinking of. They need to start with city councils, mayors, statehouses, etc. Their interests would be much better served by a true conservative in the White House, regardless of religion.

[81artmonk]

I guess my question is What republican candidate is a good fit for pres?? The one I thought would be just dropped out, which leaves pretty much no one.

Romney: changed most of his stances after he started to run, so I don't really trust he will do what he says he will.

Huckabee: Alot like Romney, but is a friend to ILLEGALS and is too soft on that problem, plus he seems a little too much of a religious right winger even for me. I am for that, but he seems to much further than Bush is.

McCain: not a chance in H#** I'd vote for him. open borders, amnesty, voted against Bush's taxcuts, gang of 14, campaign finance reform bill, Now he says he's a changed man, yeah right.

Rudy: He's pro gay, has a no comment stance of abortion, not too sure what his ideals would be with regard to supreme court justices, since he appointed alot of liberal ones while in office in NY. Like the rest, his record is different from what he says he will do.

Right now, there aren't any real conservative candidates. I don't like the dems and there aren't any repubs I like too much either, so what is one too do??

[Teller]

Well, we're talking about a national race and a large segment of the population counted as the "Christian Right." I don't know each one personally, so yes, I guess you could classify it as a wide brush. I do know that polls have shown a good chunk of support for Huckabee among Christians. And I do know the rising prevailing public perception is of him as the Christian candidate. Therefore, the logical conclusion is to state they probably have fallen for the hype and are supporting "Rev. Huckabee" rather than thoroughly examining his record.

The alternate choice is to assume everyone has done their homework and that the Christian Right has been waiting all their lives for a candidate who is a fiscal liberal and pro-illegal immigration. Now I haven't been everywhere, but I have been around Christian circles in a number of states, and I have serious doubts that's the case.

The problem is that they are shooting themselves in the foot with Huckabee. Having an Evangelical Christian President is not going to magically end abortion/gay marriage/and whatever else they are thinking of. They need to start with city councils, mayors, statehouses, etc. Their interests would be much better served by a true conservative in the White House, regardless of religion.

Anyone who looks at any person of faith, who happens to be a conservative, and considers them part of some vast, homogenous "religious right," is only doing themselves a disservice.

I am not the exception, in terms of being a person of faith, and a conservative, that supports Huckabee because of his stance on issues that are important to me. I am the rule.

But I guess it's easier for argument's sake to lump us all together and call us blind followers. Afterall, Christians are a majority, so we're still fair game in that regard.

[10fttall]

But I guess it's easier for argument's sake to lump us all together and call us blind followers. Afterall, Christians are a majority, so we're still fair game in that regard.

And It's easier for the sake of hyperbole to play the victim of a grossly unfair generalization? I'm talking about facts, not guesses, not something I made up. From the data we have, people who consider themselves evangelical Christians, have been giving a good bit of support to Huckabee in the primaries so far. My point is that people who would classify themselves this way, generally would find Huckabee's fiscal and immigration policies not desirable if they really knew his record. Of course it's somewhat of a generalization. If you didn't want to speak in somewhat general terms, why are you posting in a thread about a campaign to 300 million people? Maybe you are an evangelical Christian and you would love to have your taxes raised and give a free pass to all the illegals. Fine, whoopee! I'm an evangelical also, and guess what? I don't. I don't want phony baloney alleged "conservatives." I'm also smart enough to realize that having an unashamedly Christian President hasn't done beans for any faith-related issues for the past 8 years.

Christians are not all dumb or blind followers, but they are people. People are generally ill-informed and swayed by what they see. Being a Christian does not make you a rocket scientist. Well intentioned people see the media portray someone as a strong Christian, and boom! Lots will assume he agrees with what they think. I'm pointing out this is not necessarily so.

[prophet]

1. My point is that people who would classify themselves this way, generally would find Huckabee's fiscal and immigration policies not desirable if they really knew his record.

2.Maybe you are an evangelical Christian and you would love to have your taxes raised and give a free pass to all the illegals. Fine, whoopee! I'm an evangelical also, and guess what? I don't.

3. I don't want phony baloney alleged "conservatives."

4. I'm also smart enough to realize that having an unashamedly Christian President hasn't done beans for any faith-related issues for the past 8 years.

Lets see if we can get actually anwsers from you regarding your statements.

In your 2nd statement you say that you are a evangelical. And in your 4th statement you say a "christian" president hasn't done beans for any faith-related issues in the past 8 years which is bogus to begin with. (Bush's Faith based initiative, appointed 2 supreme court judges that align with traditional christian values, and I believe he tried to ban partial birth abortion, but was overturned stateside), but back to Huckabee. Since you are a "evangelical" how did a Arkansas Govenor give a free pass to illegals? By giving their children a chance to better themself? So you are for punishing the children of illegals (most of whom are born here) thats not very christian is it? You are so upset that they had a chance to go to college? This is how he is weak on immigration? By giving their children a chance to get off the same system their parents milk off of? We do have a immigration problem, but it doesn't start with huckabee. It starts with boarding states, with the senators, and all the past presidents.

In 2005, huck signed legislation that prevents illegals in Arkansas from getting driver's licenses.

Lets look at every other person running... what have they done to help with immigration that is so different than Huckabee.

What we do know is that Huckabee signed a No Amnesty Pledge. How many of the rest have done this?

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=1206

Are there going to be flaws? Sure, but find me someone that we can not find a flaw in their "idea".

(Points 1 & 2)Fiscal & Taxes:

As Governor of Arkansas, Huck pushed through the Arkansas Legislature the 1. first major, broad-based tax cuts in state history - a $90 million tax relief package for Arkansas families.

2. He doubled the standard deduction to $2,000 for single taxpayers and $4,000 for those who are married.

3. Taxes Huck eliminated entirely: the marriage penalty, bracket creep caused by inflation, income tax on poor families, and capital gains on home sales. To encourage investment, I cut capital gains for both individuals and businesses. To help people better themselves, I provided tax credits for employee training and education.

4. In total, I cut taxes and fees nearly 100 times during my ten-and-a-half years as Governor, saving the people of Arkansas almost $380 million.

When Huck left office in early 2007, Arkansas had nearly $850 million in state surplus, which I urged should go back to the people in the form of either a tax rebate or tax cut.

(Points 1 & 2)Did Huck raise a bunch of taxes?

In 2003 the state's chief financial officer projected a $62.3 million revenue shortfall that would result in cuts in state services, possible layoffs, tax increases or the possible repeal of late 1990s tax cuts.

Governor Huckabee told the Legislature that he would accept any recommendation they could agree on in order to meet the law's requirement to balance the budget.

The Legislature was presented a series of options and chose to increase the tax on tobacco.

The fact is that when Governor Huckabee began in office, the tax rate was 1% for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest – the tax rates remained exactly the same when he left the governor’s office 11 years later. The sales tax only went up 1 penny in 10 ½ years and the gas tax 3 cents per gallon.

Why the Governor Raised Taxes

The Arkansas constitution, in a measure that should be lauded by all fiscal conservatives, requires that the state budget be balanced.

More than 90% of the state's budget is spent on education, Medicare, prisons, and human services.

Naturally, cutting spending is always the first response of conservatives, as it was for Governor Huckabee. But that solution is inadequate when there is very little discretionary spending available in the budget.

Read about more about this here:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Newsroom.Article&ID=140

3. I don't want phony baloney alleged "conservatives."

Like Romney, Rudy, and McCain? Those are the only other canidates of have any chance at the GOP nomination. They each have less than stellar records on conservative issues.

[Skins24]

My son recently did a history project for his class. He is a junior and has a 3.6 so its crediable. Ima Repbulican voter but in Maryland that doesnt mean much but i was looking at what Huckabee supports and i have to say im quite fond over voting for him. Any other opinions???

I don't know if this is on topic or off topic but, what was the project??

I assume it has something to do with the topic... :whoknows:

[Predicto]

A bit of an exaggeration, don't ya think?

I'd settle for limiting the Establishment Clause to what it was intended for. Pretty hard to mistake "Congress shall make no law," IMO. But I know, being OK with a manger in the town square makes me a religious fanatic.

Do we need to go over this again?

[JMS]

I think I speak for every Democrate in saying that Huckabee is our favorite GOP candiate. He's both fatally flawed, and he splits the traditional GOP base of fiscal conservatives and social whack job facists, right down the middle.

Go Huck!!

[SlinginSammy HOF '63]

................

[SlinginSammy HOF '63]

Got me!

errrr and loonies are for Ron Paul. :laugh:

uh....no, loonies are people who support an unashamed tax man

[prophet]

uh....no, loonies are people who support an unashamed tax man

Like Ronald Reagan did in '83? Mr Conservitive himself?

:doh:

update:

Upon a quick google looks like he did it more than in '83.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp

In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.