choopie911 wrote: I still dont get how people like Huckabee

Easy.

All available evidence indicates that he is smart, honest, well-considered, something of an intellectual, not in the pocket of the party powerstructure, and generally a decent chap.  He has shown an ability to work across party lines and policy differences, and generally has a record of getting things done.

He has been on the Colbert Report several times, and he gets the joke completely, and manages to play along without fear that he might say something to upset the voters, all the while still being funny and smart.  He has been on NPR several times, and manages to hold intelligent discourse with the loonies that call in.

As best I can tell, he is fundamentally a capable intellectual leader.

On the issues I disagree with him on virtually everything.  He is a left-wing extremist on many economic issues and a right-wing extremist on many social issues.  But despite all that, I choose a sincere intellectual over the nitwit toolbags that are the alternatives.

choopie911 wrote: So he's the most likely to get the job done, and the most intellectually capable? How does disagreeing with all his views not irk you then, since shouldn't he be the most likely to have action taken in regards to those issues?

Because as to most of the issues that the President can actually do something about, there is very little real difference between the candidates.  The US government structure keeps true extremists out of power, and neuters even the slightly unusual.

The most drastic differences of opinion are mostly in areas where the President has relatively little power - like gay marriage.  My main concern with Huckabee is that he would put another ultra-conservative justice on the Supreme Court.  Other than that, I am not particularly concerned about the issues.  I prefer a person I admire and trust, but disagree with, to somebody I neither admire nor trust.

blackdog144 wrote: i am my own person and i support him cause i believe in basically everything he stands for. So its just my opinion.

So, you're a liberal?  That surprises me somehow...

Tolgak wrote: Right, except he's a religious nutjob. And all of the above means nothing if he uses it to favor Christianity. Hitler was a brilliant man and in many ways, but his potential to make the nation more prosperous than before was destroyed by prejudice.

His record as governor of Arkansas shows otherwise.  He has had plenty of opportunity to turn that state into a theocracy, and has not done so.

Also, the reason he's not "in the pocket of the party powerstructure" is because he is now a shining example of modern Republican ideals. His will is the same as the party's.

Hardly.  Just about the only things he agrees with the GOP on is abortion and gay marriage.  His positions on most other issues are more aligned with the Democratic party platform, and the left end of the Democrats at that.

He still agrees with them and openly says that he wants to be as much a religious leader as a president.

I would expect nothing less from a minister.  Clearly religion motivates him, as it motivates many elected officials.   But being a religious leader, and being motivated by religion, is qualitatively different from being a theocrat.

He may be the greatest leader in the world, but we will pay dearly for the actions he will take to secure the dominance of fundamentalist christianity.

Again, his track record as Governor says otherwise.  If we were talking about Coburn or Brownback I would agree with you, but just because Huckabee is an evangelical Christian does not mean that he is a theocrat.

Being intellectual is only a small amount of what makes a good leader. You need experience, instincts, good communications skills, and knowledge of what is best for a diverse society. He lacks the last quality, which happens to be the most important of them all.

I agree that those are all important qualities - and he has shown that he has all of them.  Review his record in Arkansas.  It is quite impressive, really.  You can't get too hung up on the evangelical bit.

And dude - you seriously need to stop with the post-within-post stuff.  It's driving me nuts.

Hysteria wrote: So, Susan, what do you think of him wanting to put God in the Constitution?

I don't like it - but as has been pointed out, it is not something to be worried about.  I am far more worried about him putting an ultra-conservative justice on the Court, which he could do if the GOP retook the Senate.

This is much less of a fear than, say, Giuliani guaranteeing us 4 four years of being hated by the world, or Obama being a full-time "visionary" while not doing a darned piece of actual work.

Also, perhaps he toned his craziness down a bit while he was the Governor of Arkansas in hopes of being elected as the president in the near future.  You admitted he is an intellectual, and that seems like something an intellectual would do - bide his time until he can really make an impact.

Clearly you did not see him on Colbert last week.  This is not a man who is toning down anything to get elected.  It is quite clear that he is not say-anything-to-win Romney.  Heck, he was just one step shy of the "hookers and blow" Florida guy.

Kayback wrote: The election of goverment officials in the USA doesn't mean you get the best leader, it means you get the most POPULAR leader.

Actually, our system guarantees that we only get moderates in office.  Not a bad thing.

fractus.scud wrote:   Huckabee is a populist who is running against big government.

Populist, yes.  Running against big government?  Not so much.  You are thinking of Ron Paul.  Huckabee is very much a big government kind of guy.

fractus.scud wrote: The person who made the video says he/she does not have concrete evidence for his/her claims. Please provide some before I go further with that whole bit.

Which part do you want backup for?

fractus.scud wrote: I'd do more research myself, but I'm quite busy, so if you'd give me a little more info. I'd appreciate it. From what I've gathered from the clip (didn't watch the whole thing) is there is some sort of discrimination against atheists in Maryland as far as holding public office goes. I never heard that before, and I live right in New Jersey, but it could just have been hidden behind closed doors so that's why I need something more concrete.

Google is your friend.  There are plenty of articles discussing these rules.  Here is one:  http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=flynn_20_1&section=library - http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=flynn_20_1& ;section=library

You can also find state constitutions online to verify yourself.  Of course, these provisions are almost certain unenforceable (because they violate the Federal constitution), but they are rather embarassing nevertheless.

Since nobody else seems to want to...

The video and article mis-cites a bit.  There is no Article 37 of the Maryland constitution.  There is, however, Article 37 of the "Declaration of Rights", which is like Article 0 of the constitution.

The portion of the Maryland constitution called the Declaration of rights can be found on Maryland government servers http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html - here .  Scroll down for Article 37.  Almost certainly unenforceable, but still there.

EDIT - Article 36 also applies, of course.  Both make for good reading.  Discrimination in the guise of open-mindedness.

Susan Storm wrote: Since nobody else seems to want to... The video and article mis-cites a bit.  There is no Article 37 of the Maryland constitution.  There is, however, Article 37 of the "Declaration of Rights", which is like Article 0 of the constitution. The portion of the Maryland constitution called the Declaration of rights can be found on Maryland government servers http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html - here .  Scroll down for Article 37.  Almost certainly unenforceable, but still there. EDIT - Article 36 also applies, of course.  Both make for good reading.  Discrimination in the guise of open-mindedness.

http://" name="20 -

http://" name="20 - - (amended by Chapter 558, Acts of 1970, ratified Nov. 3, 1970)

The Maryland provision was explicity overturned by the Supreme Court in 1961: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins , but it remains on the books.

The similar provisions in other states are presumably also unenforceable because of Torcaso, but they also remain on the books.  And apparently there have been several attempts at enforcing them recently, Torcaso-be-damned.

Hysteria wrote: I might take your socialist/ theocracy comparison if a majority of the people in our country, including presidential hopefuls, had core beliefs consistent with socialism.

That may be merely a matter of definition...  This country has a very long list of socialist features that every single candidate (other than Ron Paul) supports.

It would not hard to argue that we are merely voting for different degrees of socialism.

fractus.scud wrote: You have a point there (regarding how many people believe what), but the majority of Christians are not for theocracy either.

Susan Storm wrote: That may be merely a matter of definition...  This country has a very long list of socialist features that every single candidate (other than Ron Paul) supports. It would not hard to argue that we are merely voting for different degrees of socialism.

Sure, but this is what fractal intended by his post.  He was simply comparing the possibility of socialism to the possibility of theocracy, which is pretty much absurd.

Hysteria wrote: A pure theocracy?  Sure, I am sure not too many Christians will openly admit they are for that, but they sure don't mind varying degrees of it.  How many Christians are against homosexual marriage, abortion and et cetera simply because of Christianity?  How many of said Christians want to make laws against these acts?

We can go far past that, if that is your concern.  Current laws about liquor sales, prostitution/pornography (heck, anything sex-related), abortion, stem cell research, marriage, child-rearing, as well as general morality all bear the signs of leftover christianity.

fractus.scud wrote: Ok. Now give me a reason why movements such as those that would ban abortion when the mothers life or rape are not part of it is wrong.

This sentence confused me.  Restate?

fractus.scud wrote:   I just asked why banning abortion outside of rape and risk to the mothers life is wrong.

Not aimed at me, but I'll answer anyway...  :)

Or rather, I'll just make my point:  The reason that early-stage abortion is EVER considered a bad thing is because of the concept of a "soul", which is a religious idea.

Without a "soul", an embryo is just a lump of cells with potential, and certainly does not carry great moral weight.

The reason we are even having the abortion conversation is because of religion.  From a strictly materialistic perspective, abortion (at least early-stage abortion) is entirely a non-issue.

Bunkered wrote: But personally, I think it's repulsive that a "mother" would be willing to kill her baby.

And therein lies the proof that all but the most hardened pro-lifers do not truly consider a fetus a "full" person.

fractus.scud wrote: That is debatable. Whether or not there is a soul, the "clump of cells" will still become a unique individual, and by having an abortion, that person will never have the chance to live, which is what "godless pro-lifers" believe.

I think you mean "might become".  Just like sperm cells.

People know this, and are not rationally attached to their embyos.  A very large percentage of embryos die an early (and "natural") death, yet nobody holds memorial services for those.  It is only after we "decide" that it is a baby that we become emotionally vested and declare that it has moral value.

This attachment has more to do with the parents than with the embryo.  An embryo is just a clump of cells with potential.

fractus.scud wrote: I know the life support post wasn't for me, but I want to voice my opinion. A person that wants to be taken off life support should have made the decision in writing and when fully aware of what he/she was doing. An unborn child has no such choice.

I think you missed the point here.  The point was that somebody like Terri Schiavo was "alive", but she was certainly not a "person".  For all practical purposes she died a decade before her body, and the irrational attachment to her still-living body is another example of soul-based thinking.

Bunkered wrote: It depends what stage it is for me. If it's first trimester, it's not as reprehensible as third IMO. By third trimester, the fetus is very close to "full human" status.

This is my point.  A rational, non-soul approach to abortion recognizes that moral weight and "person-ness" is not an all or nothing thing.  A week 37 abortion is completely different from a week 4 abortion.

The only way you to the "no abortion ever" result is with a soul or something like it, and that requires religious thinking.

And, of course, even most religious pro-lifers do not truly believe that an ebryo is the "same" as an actual child, despite their protestations, which undermines their position.

fractus.scud wrote: That wasn't my point. My point is no one should be able to say "Take him/her of life support" without that persons written permission from an earlier time. Didn't the mother want her to stay on life support?

That being the point - "life support" is the incorrect term, since Terri was long dead.  Just because her heart was beating didn't mean she was "alive" in a person sense, any more than an embryo is "alive" in a person sense.

If Terri (during the controversy) was a "person", then so is the fungus between my toes.  Living cells != living person.

And Susan Storm, why would religious thinking be wrong if it's how a person bases there moral values?

I don't think religious thinking is wrong, as evidenced by my support for Mike Huckabee.  I may think it is silly and irrational, but not "wrong".

carl_the_sniper wrote: Hysteria wrote: Neither will the 30,000 children that die a day from starvation.  Are you going to fix that too while you are at it? What the hell does that have to do with it?

This is a standard left-wing response to "pro-lifers".  As in "you say you are pro life, but you only care about fetii.  Once they are born, you are happy to let them die.  If you were truly pro-life you would care for living children (and adults) as well as for the unborn."

Hysteria wrote: Neither will the 30,000 children that die a day from starvation.  Are you going to fix that too while you are at it?

Well...

Tolgak wrote: They're going to put up TV ads with images of said kids, Take 30% of that money for themselves, Use 50% of the remainder for taking care of dying children, Use the other 50% left over to evangelize to said children, Claim success.

And this is an example of where Huckabee, for faith reasons or otherwise, departs.

Huckabee favors a moderate-to-liberal immigration policy, that would allow a lot more of those children to benefit from the US economy by letting their parents/families work here.

Shutting down the borders so that we can keep "our" jobs, and instead sending $1/day to feed some kid in Africa is not being a very good Christian.  Huckabee, as best I can tell, walks the walk on this and several other issues.

Huckabee chooses to "be a better steward of the land" instead of the "god gave us dominion over the land" scorched earth environmental policy favored by many other evangelicals.

Along the same lines, Huckabee favors compassionate and useful social programs instead of just handing out religious pamphlets to the poor.

Huckabee is, as best I can tell, motivated by his faith to be a good person, instead of being motivated by his faith to be a selfish arrogant ... something.  Thus I do not mind his religious motivations.