so...Mike Huckabee.
- Thread starter Harry Vest
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
so... Mike Huckabee
Or is this abortion vs Ron Paul?
Or is this abortion vs Ron Paul?
Dreadsox said:
To be honest, it makes me think they are wrong on the stance, because I don't think that they are so much acting in good faith on behalf of the fetus, as much as they are acting to control women and their sexual behaviour. When you no longer care about the child after it is born, when you legislate in a way to cut social programs from these children, when you don't care that we have hundreds of thousands of deadbeat fathers, when you are against sexual education and birth control, that makes me question your motives. And if I don't believe that they are really advocating for life, then I tend to conclude that their position is either faulty or entirely disingenuous.
anitram said:
While there may be people who are just wanting to control women's sexual behavior, all pro-life people aren't like that. I personally don't think prostitution should be illegal because that truly is the women's body and her own right.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Then you don't think it should be legislated?Infinitum98 said:
I really should stop answering you until you can do some research. Can you find a case where it wasn't medically necessary?Infinitum98 said:
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Infinitum98 said:
I'm not the one who posted that little tidbit of information. It was Vincent Vega.
I personally don't give a rat's ass what Ron Paul thinks in medically necessary. He thinks I should be forced to carry a child to term. That's all that matters. Ask Romanians in the 1980s how that went.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
Wow. Haven't heard baby-killer in ages.
Last edited:
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
Of course I am! I'd rather see women get safe and legal abortions rather than bleed to death from the illegal ones. That makes me serenely not "pro-life"! Goodness, even I knew that.
Because we all know that the "pro-lifers" could give a flying fuck about those whores who just want an abortion because they had sex and they shouldn't have.
martha said:
Okay it should be legislated like this: No partial birth abortion unless it is medically necessary. That means, no partial birth abortion allowed if a mother changes her mind about having a baby. Yes to partial birth abortion if carrying the baby is risky for the mother's health or life.
I don't know any cases where it was or wasn't medically necessary, i'm just saying that if someone wants to get an abortion just because they don't feel like carrying the baby anymore, that shouldn't be allowed.
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Source: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
So he has never seen a case where an abortion was medically necessary. German doctors, on the other hand, have considered about 2,200 cases to be medically necessary in 2006 according to the German statistical bureau, because only then an abortion after the twelth week is legal here.
martha said:
Wow. Haven't heard baby-killer in ages.
If you want to characterize your position as that.
If you aregument is that a fetus cannot survive without the mother...
My response is neither can a newborm baby....
yet it is murder if that baby is killed.
It is amazing the tactics you resort to in every thread when you are pushed.
Last edited:
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
Actually a newborn child can survive without its mother. It cannot survive without care. But I assume that wasn't the point you were making.
Last edited:
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Dreadsox said:
You don't push me. You piss me off. There is a difference. And so to spare us both, I'll refrain from replying to your posts.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Infinitum98 said:
And you get to have a say in this because.....??
martha said:
Who does not piss you off that does not agree with you?
Seriously, this is the only thing you pick up on in my posts? When I call bullshit with your comments?
You do not have to spare me anything. If you go back to your first responses to my posts five years ago, it was the same bullshit. It appears everytime someone does not agree with you or makes a reasonable point in which the poster does not agree with you.
Why are you here? Is it really to Free Your Mind? Or to be a playground bully?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
He gets paid to speak in churches
huffington post
In the midst of his presidential campaign, GOP frontrunner Mike Huckabee has continued to accept tens of thousands of dollars in speaking fees primarily from churches. The arrangement does not violate campaign finance law, as the former Arkansas Governor does not discuss his White House ambitions but rather topics such a religion and health. Nor, for that matter, do political observers see a potential conflict of interest. Huckabee, after all, is already the candidate of the religious right.
But for some, the speeches reinforce the view of Huckabee as someone willing to push the occasional ethics envelope in order to profit on his political fame.
"Clearly there is this pattern throughout [Huckabee's] political life of using his office and campaigns to benefit himself financially," Jay Barth, political scientist at Arkansas' Hendrix College, told the Huffington Post. "Clearly, he has sought out ways to capitalize on his political experiences."
On Wednesday evening, the Politico
and the conservative website Redstate
were provided with emails that showed Huckabee was accepting $25,000 to speak at religious organizations. The revelation raised eyebrows, in part, because Huckabee is the lone candidate in the race believed to still be giving paid-for-speeches; but also, because of Huckabee's explanation for staying on the lecture circuit. The former Baptist minister, who is planning two more speeches in February after two this past November, says that without the speaking fees he could very well go hungry.
"Unlike the members of the Senate or Congress who continue to get their paycheck and get a taxpayer-funded salary, and unlike people who are independently wealthy, if I don't work, I don't eat," Huckabee told Politico on Wednesday.
While Huckabee was one of the most underpaid governors in the nation, and did not enter public office with private wealth, a review of his personal financial disclosure forms suggests that, economically, he is doing quiet well.
According to a document filed on May 13, 2007, which covers events in 2006, Huckabee lists a salary of $74,145 and a $14,101 pension from the State of Arkansas. In addition, the former governor holds several thousand dollars in assets or money with banks and credit unions. He has hundreds of thousands of dollars in stocks with companies like Proctor & Gamble and Flagship Global Health and similar amounts of cash in funds like the Annuity Board Southern Baptist Convention.
Monies provided to Huckabee through book promotion deals (which are organized by the group 12 Stops, Inc.) reached more than $375,000, including more than $148,000 in royalties from the Margaret McBride Literary Agency. In addition, Huckabee received more than $40,000 in consulting fees from The National Association of Music Manufacturers in 2006. The poverty line for a family of four in America in 2005, it should be noted, was $19,350.
Moreover, on the campaign trail, many of Huckabee's expenditures are covered through his political action committee. During the last fundraising quarter, Huckabee used more than $3,000 of his campaign money for personal travel reimbursement. His daughter-in-law Lauren received more than $9,000 in salary during that three-month period. His daughter, Sarah, was paid the same salary and had more than $2,000 in travel expenditures paid for by the campaign.
Huckabee's campaign would not return a request for comment. In his interview with Politico, the former Governor - who does pay a mortgage on his home (pictured here) - said that because of taxes, the money he was already earning was not enough.
"The trouble is, when you're considered self-employed as I am, the taxes eat the first 40 percent of it," he said. "By the time I do that and pay expenses, and then there's about a 25 percent commission that goes to the agency, there's a whole lot less of it that actually gets to me. Still, it's good. I'd like for it to be even more."
Those who have followed Huckabee's tenure in Arkansas were not surprised by the recent revelations.
"I think that is a clear pattern and the history is there," said Barth. "The question is, does he get a little bit of a break as someone who did not come into public life with a tremendous amount of assets."
During his political career, Huckabee was hit with 14 ethics complaints, some of which, it should be noted, were fully dismissed. He was fined $1,000 for not reporting the $14,000 he paid himself from his 1992 U.S. Senate campaign and $43,000 he gave himself from his 1994 lieutenant governor's campaign. Huckabee also failed to disclose $23,500 he received from a nonprofit organization set up to handle speaking engagements. While in office, he accepted more than 300 gifts worth at least $130,000, ranging from $3,700 cowboy boots to a $600 chainsaw. And as he prepared to leave the governor's chair, Huckabee and his wife set up wedding registries at two stores for gifts to furnish their new home. He had been married since 1974.
In regards to the current lecture circuit, Huckabee is walking a thin line, critics and campaign watchdog groups say. But as long as he is not actively campaigning, or asking for contributions to his campaign, or, for that matter, working in coordination with the church to advance his candidacy, he is not breaking the law.
"You can't solicit contributions or do fundraising. And you can't advocate your own election and you can't talk about your campaign," said Bob Biersack, a spokesperson for the Federal Election Commission. Huckabee, he added, could turn around and use the money he earned for his campaign, provided that those who paid him were not previously aware of where the cash was going. "Candidates can us their own funds, and funds they've earned, and there is no limit on that if they are not accepted pubic funds."
huffington post
In the midst of his presidential campaign, GOP frontrunner Mike Huckabee has continued to accept tens of thousands of dollars in speaking fees primarily from churches. The arrangement does not violate campaign finance law, as the former Arkansas Governor does not discuss his White House ambitions but rather topics such a religion and health. Nor, for that matter, do political observers see a potential conflict of interest. Huckabee, after all, is already the candidate of the religious right.
But for some, the speeches reinforce the view of Huckabee as someone willing to push the occasional ethics envelope in order to profit on his political fame.
"Clearly there is this pattern throughout [Huckabee's] political life of using his office and campaigns to benefit himself financially," Jay Barth, political scientist at Arkansas' Hendrix College, told the Huffington Post. "Clearly, he has sought out ways to capitalize on his political experiences."
On Wednesday evening, the Politico
and the conservative website Redstate
were provided with emails that showed Huckabee was accepting $25,000 to speak at religious organizations. The revelation raised eyebrows, in part, because Huckabee is the lone candidate in the race believed to still be giving paid-for-speeches; but also, because of Huckabee's explanation for staying on the lecture circuit. The former Baptist minister, who is planning two more speeches in February after two this past November, says that without the speaking fees he could very well go hungry.
"Unlike the members of the Senate or Congress who continue to get their paycheck and get a taxpayer-funded salary, and unlike people who are independently wealthy, if I don't work, I don't eat," Huckabee told Politico on Wednesday.
While Huckabee was one of the most underpaid governors in the nation, and did not enter public office with private wealth, a review of his personal financial disclosure forms suggests that, economically, he is doing quiet well.
According to a document filed on May 13, 2007, which covers events in 2006, Huckabee lists a salary of $74,145 and a $14,101 pension from the State of Arkansas. In addition, the former governor holds several thousand dollars in assets or money with banks and credit unions. He has hundreds of thousands of dollars in stocks with companies like Proctor & Gamble and Flagship Global Health and similar amounts of cash in funds like the Annuity Board Southern Baptist Convention.
Monies provided to Huckabee through book promotion deals (which are organized by the group 12 Stops, Inc.) reached more than $375,000, including more than $148,000 in royalties from the Margaret McBride Literary Agency. In addition, Huckabee received more than $40,000 in consulting fees from The National Association of Music Manufacturers in 2006. The poverty line for a family of four in America in 2005, it should be noted, was $19,350.
Moreover, on the campaign trail, many of Huckabee's expenditures are covered through his political action committee. During the last fundraising quarter, Huckabee used more than $3,000 of his campaign money for personal travel reimbursement. His daughter-in-law Lauren received more than $9,000 in salary during that three-month period. His daughter, Sarah, was paid the same salary and had more than $2,000 in travel expenditures paid for by the campaign.
Huckabee's campaign would not return a request for comment. In his interview with Politico, the former Governor - who does pay a mortgage on his home (pictured here) - said that because of taxes, the money he was already earning was not enough.
"The trouble is, when you're considered self-employed as I am, the taxes eat the first 40 percent of it," he said. "By the time I do that and pay expenses, and then there's about a 25 percent commission that goes to the agency, there's a whole lot less of it that actually gets to me. Still, it's good. I'd like for it to be even more."
Those who have followed Huckabee's tenure in Arkansas were not surprised by the recent revelations.
"I think that is a clear pattern and the history is there," said Barth. "The question is, does he get a little bit of a break as someone who did not come into public life with a tremendous amount of assets."
During his political career, Huckabee was hit with 14 ethics complaints, some of which, it should be noted, were fully dismissed. He was fined $1,000 for not reporting the $14,000 he paid himself from his 1992 U.S. Senate campaign and $43,000 he gave himself from his 1994 lieutenant governor's campaign. Huckabee also failed to disclose $23,500 he received from a nonprofit organization set up to handle speaking engagements. While in office, he accepted more than 300 gifts worth at least $130,000, ranging from $3,700 cowboy boots to a $600 chainsaw. And as he prepared to leave the governor's chair, Huckabee and his wife set up wedding registries at two stores for gifts to furnish their new home. He had been married since 1974.
In regards to the current lecture circuit, Huckabee is walking a thin line, critics and campaign watchdog groups say. But as long as he is not actively campaigning, or asking for contributions to his campaign, or, for that matter, working in coordination with the church to advance his candidacy, he is not breaking the law.
"You can't solicit contributions or do fundraising. And you can't advocate your own election and you can't talk about your campaign," said Bob Biersack, a spokesperson for the Federal Election Commission. Huckabee, he added, could turn around and use the money he earned for his campaign, provided that those who paid him were not previously aware of where the cash was going. "Candidates can us their own funds, and funds they've earned, and there is no limit on that if they are not accepted pubic funds."
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Dreadsox said:
But there is a difference: A newborn baby could survive with almost anyone's help, a fetus does need the mother, or better, be inside the mother, up to a point where machines could support it. But after the baby is born, the mother can give the baby to a person that will care for it (though this possibility is not available to every person).
Vincent Vega said:
I understand the nuances of this....believe me....
But if a fetus is just a bunch of cells dependant on a mother for survival......
A baby is a bunch of cells dependant on someone anyone for survival.....
If we are going to take the life of a fetus and calssify it as something other than life......Following this logic.....a baby is still not anything other than an advanced fetus. Knowing what we now about child development, and the wiring of the brain, at what point should we classify this lump of cells a living human being? Breathing on its own makes it somehow more human than the fetus?
That is my point. To distort my point into I am calling someone a baby killer, is so offensive to me. My position is not one of judgement.
I have enough sin of my own to bear and carry without putting that on someone else.......
Last edited:
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
Dreadsox said:
Indeed. Some of the over-the-top exaggeration that goes on here is ridiculous.
The question here has never been "should abortion remain legal", but rather, "how readily available should they be" and "under what circumstances should they be done". For that reason, I consider the term "pro-choice" to be a bit of a misnomer. Keeping abortion legal is paramount to achieving public safety. Come on now...
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
LemonMelon said:
Many would disagree.
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
LemonMelon said:
Just to clarify, are you including all abortions in your above or those after first trimester?
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Huckabee's muzzle control problem
by Jim Tankersley
Republican Mike Huckabee took his presidential campaign for a quick pheasant-hunting expedition in Iowa on Wednesday, and at one point, a reporter asked why he hadn’t invited sporting enthusiast Dick Cheney along. "Because I want to survive all the way through this," Huckabee replied, in a chuckling dig at the vice president’s accidental shooting of a quail-hunting partner last year.
Any good sportsman, though, couldn’t miss a distinctly Cheneyesque moment in the press accounts of the former Arkansas governor’s morning hunt: At one point, Huckabee’s party turned toward a cluster of reporters and cameramen and, when they kicked up a pheasant, fired shotgun blasts over the group’s heads.
This, friends, is dangerously bad hunting form.
Your Swamp correspondent, the son of a longtime hunter education instructor, grew up plying the corn rows and stream banks of rural Oregon with a Labrador retriever and a Mossberg 20-gauge pump shotgun. On our hunts for pheasant, grouse and quail, merely swinging a gun barrel in the general direction of another person was grounds for day-long banishment to the truck (which smelled like wet dog).
Suffice to say, if any of our hunting mates had pulled a stunt like Huckabee’s yesterday, we never would have invited them back. It’s the sort of behavior that drives safety-conscious hunters up the wall, because it reinforces a reckless, gun-totin’ stereotype.
My colleague James Oliphant reports that Huckabee’s party was about 75 yards away from the press corps Wednesday when a pheasant jumped up and flew toward the reporters, drawing several shots. “That was too close,” he reports a cameraman saying.
Perhaps Huckabee missed hunter’s safety classes – Arkansas only requires them for hunters born after 1968 – but the etiquette on this point is clear.
“Never point a firearm at yourself or others,” the International Hunter Education Association declares in its Basic Safety Rules. Later, it adds, “Never point your firearm at something you do not intend to shoot. Make sure you positively identify what you are shooting at and know what lies in front of and beyond it.”
Huckabee emerged happily from his hunt, three dead pheasants in tow, Oliphant reports. Asked for a metaphor to describe the hunt, he replied, "Don't get in my way. This is what happens."
Posted by Jim Tankersley on December 27, 2007 12:39 PM | Per
by Jim Tankersley
Republican Mike Huckabee took his presidential campaign for a quick pheasant-hunting expedition in Iowa on Wednesday, and at one point, a reporter asked why he hadn’t invited sporting enthusiast Dick Cheney along. "Because I want to survive all the way through this," Huckabee replied, in a chuckling dig at the vice president’s accidental shooting of a quail-hunting partner last year.
Any good sportsman, though, couldn’t miss a distinctly Cheneyesque moment in the press accounts of the former Arkansas governor’s morning hunt: At one point, Huckabee’s party turned toward a cluster of reporters and cameramen and, when they kicked up a pheasant, fired shotgun blasts over the group’s heads.
This, friends, is dangerously bad hunting form.
Your Swamp correspondent, the son of a longtime hunter education instructor, grew up plying the corn rows and stream banks of rural Oregon with a Labrador retriever and a Mossberg 20-gauge pump shotgun. On our hunts for pheasant, grouse and quail, merely swinging a gun barrel in the general direction of another person was grounds for day-long banishment to the truck (which smelled like wet dog).
Suffice to say, if any of our hunting mates had pulled a stunt like Huckabee’s yesterday, we never would have invited them back. It’s the sort of behavior that drives safety-conscious hunters up the wall, because it reinforces a reckless, gun-totin’ stereotype.
My colleague James Oliphant reports that Huckabee’s party was about 75 yards away from the press corps Wednesday when a pheasant jumped up and flew toward the reporters, drawing several shots. “That was too close,” he reports a cameraman saying.
Perhaps Huckabee missed hunter’s safety classes – Arkansas only requires them for hunters born after 1968 – but the etiquette on this point is clear.
“Never point a firearm at yourself or others,” the International Hunter Education Association declares in its Basic Safety Rules. Later, it adds, “Never point your firearm at something you do not intend to shoot. Make sure you positively identify what you are shooting at and know what lies in front of and beyond it.”
Huckabee emerged happily from his hunt, three dead pheasants in tow, Oliphant reports. Asked for a metaphor to describe the hunt, he replied, "Don't get in my way. This is what happens."
Posted by Jim Tankersley on December 27, 2007 12:39 PM | Per
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Maybe not in this thread, but it's been the case in other threads.LemonMelon said:
You mean under what circumstances you think they should be done. Because some day you may need one?LemonMelon said:
You have no memory of what things used to be like. Again I ask you to do some research before you post. But that research might challenge your assumptions. "Pro-life" is worse. The women who die from illegal abortions just don't matter to many who consider themselves "pro-life."LemonMelon said:
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
anitram said:
By "here", of course, I mean this thread alone. Why bother discussing the countless others? Based on the 4 or 5 abortion threads I've read in the past year, the folks who consider making it illegal a viable option were never in the conversation for long, because they never had a better option themselves. New day, new thread, new context.
Not in this thread.
All, though most specifically during the first trimester.
But you're not talking to those folks at the moment. If someone feels that way at some point in this thread, I'll back you up. The polls say the majority agrees with you anyway, and it's growing larger by the day.
Similar threads
