phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
LemonMelon said:
This is true. They believe there are better ways. But they don't know any better ways. They have no suggestions past "Ban it!"
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.
This is true. They believe there are better ways. But they don't know any better ways. They have no suggestions past "Ban it!"
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
phillyfan26 said:
Does that mean, however, that conversations like these are just a waste of time, as there can be no improvements made anyway? I think they can still be of value (as much value as an internet political discussion can be, of course).phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
They could be of value if viable solutions were presented, yes. I certainly don't think the discussions should stop. But realistically, without even a suggestion of a real, feasible plan, is it really even a real discussion of alternatives?
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
phillyfan26 said:
No. It wouldn't be. However, since actual alternatives are being required in this discussion, I would put it above 95% of all other abortion "debates" (RE: 3-4 pages of swearing and moral righteousness) I have partaken of.
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
I agree. I'm just saying that until the pro-life movement comes up with even a starting point of an actual implementation plan, it's not hard to understand why nothing's changing.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
I love you all. I do. 
ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
This guy's such a lightweight on foreign policy:
They're not even in the top 25 nationalities caught.
They're not even in the top 25 nationalities caught.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
And "Latin America" isn't a nation. 
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Huckabee stands by 'Christ' comment
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Sun Dec 30
Mike Huckabee, a Republican relying on support from religious conservatives in Thursday's hard-fought presidential caucuses, on Sunday stood by a decade-old comment in which he said, "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
In a television interview, the ordained Southern Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor made no apologies for the 1998 comment made at a Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Salt Lake City.
"It was a speech made to a Christian gathering, and, and certainly that would be appropriate to be said to a gathering of Southern Baptists," Huckabee said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
He gave the speech the same year he endorsed the Baptist convention's statement of beliefs on marriage that "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ." Huckabee and his wife, Janet, signed a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the statement with 129 other evangelical leaders.
The former governor, who rallied Christian evangelicals to make him a surprise force in Iowa, has put his faith front and center in his campaign. His stump speech sounds like a pastor's pitch from a pulpit. Campaign ads emphasize faith and call him a Christian leader. He frequently quotes Bible verses.
As his fortunes have improved, Huckabee has faced a drumbeat of questions and criticism about his gubernatorial record and the role of faith in his administration. He also has made some missteps while trying to fend off a challenge — and critical TV ads — from Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and Mormon whose faith unsettles some religious conservatives.
Four days before the caucuses Thursday, a new poll found Huckabee's surge may have stalled; his once double-digit lead over Romney has evaporated. Private polling shows the two in a dead heat.
The television interview was Huckabee's only campaign appearance Sunday.
With the media throng following him having grown immensely, Huckabee scrapped a public event at a church in favor of attending a private service closed to reporters. Instead of courting voters, he hunkered down to film new TV ads, perhaps spots responding to Romney's barrage of critical commercials.
As recently as Friday, Huckabee insisted he wanted to run a positive campaign. He also reserved the right to respond aggressively.
"Hopefully we'll just be talking about issues," Romney told reporters Sunday. In contrast to Huckabee, Romney had a full slate of events on a bus tour of eastern Iowa.
In the NBC interview, Huckabee, a longtime opponent of legalized abortion, said he does not believe that women should be punished for undergoing the procedure, but that doctors might need to face sanctions.
"I don't know that you'd put him in prison, but there's something to me untoward about a person who has committed himself to healing people and to making people alive who would take money to take an innocent life and to make that life dead," Huckabee said.
He also argued that his emphasis on his Christian beliefs does not mean he's alienating atheists. He said, if elected, he would have no problem appointing atheists to government posts.
"The key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else's faith or to restrict," Huckabee said.
Those skeptical of the role of faith in his presidency, he said, should look at his record in Arkansas.
"I didn't ever propose a bill that we would remove the Capitol dome of Arkansas and replace it with a steeple," he said. "You know, we didn't do tent revivals on the grounds of the Capitol."
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Sun Dec 30
Mike Huckabee, a Republican relying on support from religious conservatives in Thursday's hard-fought presidential caucuses, on Sunday stood by a decade-old comment in which he said, "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
In a television interview, the ordained Southern Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor made no apologies for the 1998 comment made at a Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Salt Lake City.
"It was a speech made to a Christian gathering, and, and certainly that would be appropriate to be said to a gathering of Southern Baptists," Huckabee said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
He gave the speech the same year he endorsed the Baptist convention's statement of beliefs on marriage that "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ." Huckabee and his wife, Janet, signed a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the statement with 129 other evangelical leaders.
The former governor, who rallied Christian evangelicals to make him a surprise force in Iowa, has put his faith front and center in his campaign. His stump speech sounds like a pastor's pitch from a pulpit. Campaign ads emphasize faith and call him a Christian leader. He frequently quotes Bible verses.
As his fortunes have improved, Huckabee has faced a drumbeat of questions and criticism about his gubernatorial record and the role of faith in his administration. He also has made some missteps while trying to fend off a challenge — and critical TV ads — from Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and Mormon whose faith unsettles some religious conservatives.
Four days before the caucuses Thursday, a new poll found Huckabee's surge may have stalled; his once double-digit lead over Romney has evaporated. Private polling shows the two in a dead heat.
The television interview was Huckabee's only campaign appearance Sunday.
With the media throng following him having grown immensely, Huckabee scrapped a public event at a church in favor of attending a private service closed to reporters. Instead of courting voters, he hunkered down to film new TV ads, perhaps spots responding to Romney's barrage of critical commercials.
As recently as Friday, Huckabee insisted he wanted to run a positive campaign. He also reserved the right to respond aggressively.
"Hopefully we'll just be talking about issues," Romney told reporters Sunday. In contrast to Huckabee, Romney had a full slate of events on a bus tour of eastern Iowa.
In the NBC interview, Huckabee, a longtime opponent of legalized abortion, said he does not believe that women should be punished for undergoing the procedure, but that doctors might need to face sanctions.
"I don't know that you'd put him in prison, but there's something to me untoward about a person who has committed himself to healing people and to making people alive who would take money to take an innocent life and to make that life dead," Huckabee said.
He also argued that his emphasis on his Christian beliefs does not mean he's alienating atheists. He said, if elected, he would have no problem appointing atheists to government posts.
"The key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else's faith or to restrict," Huckabee said.
Those skeptical of the role of faith in his presidency, he said, should look at his record in Arkansas.
"I didn't ever propose a bill that we would remove the Capitol dome of Arkansas and replace it with a steeple," he said. "You know, we didn't do tent revivals on the grounds of the Capitol."
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Uhoh, he's running a marathon in a state that has gay marriage.
Play of the Day: Huckabee's run
December 31, 2007
DES MOINES, Iowa --For Mike Huckabee, campaign activities in Iowa took a backseat Monday to training for the Boston Marathon.
Despite a temperature of 16 degrees, the Republican presidential candidate set off around a Des Moines lake for a 30-minute run that covered about three miles.
"This really is insane, isn't it?" said Huckabee, wearing running gear in the University of Iowa's black-and-gold color scheme.
"I go in freezing weather, but it's never this cold in Little Rock, so you know this is as cold as I probably will have run in," said the former Arkansas governor.
Before he began his jaunt, Huckabee asked his running companions, "Are we sure this path is clear, that there's not ice patches on it? Cause 'Slip Sliding Away,' it's a great song, but it's not a good campaign theme."
Of course, being in Iowa, candidates aren't immune from campaign questions even when they're on frigid runs.
Just as he was hitting the trail, a man who manages a halfway house asked Huckabee about prisoner rehabilitation.
"One of the reasons I get into a whole lot of trouble is because I do believe that you don't just keep punishing people forever," responded Huckabee, whose record on pardons has been criticized by some of his rivals.
Huckabee said the reason to punish should be to correct.
"We lock up a lot of people that we're mad at, not the ones we're really afraid of," he said. "And we ought to lock up the ones we're afraid of, but the ones we're just mad at we might find better ways" of correction.
The man told Huckabee: "If you're going to continue on that path, you've got my vote."
Huckabee said he was glad to hear it, "cause I would have hated to give that answer in front of all these cameras and lose your vote."
Asked about his expectations for the marathon on Patriots' Day, a Monday in April.
"Uh, finish before Tuesday," he said.
Play of the Day: Huckabee's run
December 31, 2007
DES MOINES, Iowa --For Mike Huckabee, campaign activities in Iowa took a backseat Monday to training for the Boston Marathon.
Despite a temperature of 16 degrees, the Republican presidential candidate set off around a Des Moines lake for a 30-minute run that covered about three miles.
"This really is insane, isn't it?" said Huckabee, wearing running gear in the University of Iowa's black-and-gold color scheme.
"I go in freezing weather, but it's never this cold in Little Rock, so you know this is as cold as I probably will have run in," said the former Arkansas governor.
Before he began his jaunt, Huckabee asked his running companions, "Are we sure this path is clear, that there's not ice patches on it? Cause 'Slip Sliding Away,' it's a great song, but it's not a good campaign theme."
Of course, being in Iowa, candidates aren't immune from campaign questions even when they're on frigid runs.
Just as he was hitting the trail, a man who manages a halfway house asked Huckabee about prisoner rehabilitation.
"One of the reasons I get into a whole lot of trouble is because I do believe that you don't just keep punishing people forever," responded Huckabee, whose record on pardons has been criticized by some of his rivals.
Huckabee said the reason to punish should be to correct.
"We lock up a lot of people that we're mad at, not the ones we're really afraid of," he said. "And we ought to lock up the ones we're afraid of, but the ones we're just mad at we might find better ways" of correction.
The man told Huckabee: "If you're going to continue on that path, you've got my vote."
Huckabee said he was glad to hear it, "cause I would have hated to give that answer in front of all these cameras and lose your vote."
Asked about his expectations for the marathon on Patriots' Day, a Monday in April.
"Uh, finish before Tuesday," he said.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
West Des Moines, Iowa - Two nights before the crucial first-in-the-nation caucuses, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee appealed to God to grant his supporters guidance as the former Arkansas governor struggled to maintain his tenuous lead.
"We cannot do it," he said referring to Thursday night's Republican caucus, "by arming ourselves and taking anyone out. We will go to the caucuses having knelt on our knees and having asked God for his wisdom."
He's on Leno tonight too, probably playing guitar and talking about God
"We cannot do it," he said referring to Thursday night's Republican caucus, "by arming ourselves and taking anyone out. We will go to the caucuses having knelt on our knees and having asked God for his wisdom."
He's on Leno tonight too, probably playing guitar and talking about God
the rockin edge
Blue Crack Addict
this guy kinda scares me in his ignorant comments. and his popularity scares me too.
i keep hearing my grandfather tell the obama people calling for me how he's caucusing for huckabee and how he can't vote for obama because he isn't 'pro-life'.
i guess when thats the only issue you really care about he's the perfect candidate!
i keep hearing my grandfather tell the obama people calling for me how he's caucusing for huckabee and how he can't vote for obama because he isn't 'pro-life'.
i guess when thats the only issue you really care about he's the perfect candidate!
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Huckabee is worse than Bush.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
R.E.M. singer charmed by Huckabee
Sun Jan 6 Reuters
It's the end of the world as we know it, just like the R.E.M. song goes. The band's singer, Michael Stipe, says he finds philosophical foe Mike Huckabee "charming" and "funny."
Apart from their southern roots and musical acumen, the liberal rock star has nothing in common with the conservative would-be world leader. But Stipe recently called the Sirius Satellite Radio show Jane Radio to admit that he may be losing his religion.
"I can't think of probably a single issue in which I am even remotely in the same universe as that guy ... and yet, he was kind of charming and ... self-deprecating," Stipe told Jane Radio host Jane Pratt, a day after watching Huckabee's Thursday appearance on CBS' "The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson."
"He was actually kind of a good sport, and funny, and I don't know what that means. Maybe it's a good thing that's he's being lauded right now by the right. He's an evangelical. May God bless all living creatures but my god ... how weird."
Sun Jan 6 Reuters
It's the end of the world as we know it, just like the R.E.M. song goes. The band's singer, Michael Stipe, says he finds philosophical foe Mike Huckabee "charming" and "funny."
Apart from their southern roots and musical acumen, the liberal rock star has nothing in common with the conservative would-be world leader. But Stipe recently called the Sirius Satellite Radio show Jane Radio to admit that he may be losing his religion.
"I can't think of probably a single issue in which I am even remotely in the same universe as that guy ... and yet, he was kind of charming and ... self-deprecating," Stipe told Jane Radio host Jane Pratt, a day after watching Huckabee's Thursday appearance on CBS' "The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson."
"He was actually kind of a good sport, and funny, and I don't know what that means. Maybe it's a good thing that's he's being lauded right now by the right. He's an evangelical. May God bless all living creatures but my god ... how weird."
verte76 said:
Really? I've also wondered this. But in my view, Huckabee is willing to admit that Iraq was not the right war (even though he wants to stay there). Whereas Bush stubbornly suggests that Iraq is the right war. Huckabee also is trying to help the middle class, he's not there just for big business, whereas Bush is the oil man.
Not saying that Huckabee is a good guy. I just think that Bush is the worse of the two evils.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
tpmelectioncentral.com
Huck: We Need To Amend The Constitution, Bring It In Line With God
By Eric Kleefeld - January 15, 2008
At a Michigan campaign event last night, Mike Huckabee gave an interesting reason for why he wants to amend the Constitution to ban both abortion and gay marriage: Otherwise, the Constitution would be in conflict with God.
Huckabee first observed that some of his opponents don't want to amend the Constitution on both of these topics. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
Huck: We Need To Amend The Constitution, Bring It In Line With God
By Eric Kleefeld - January 15, 2008
At a Michigan campaign event last night, Mike Huckabee gave an interesting reason for why he wants to amend the Constitution to ban both abortion and gay marriage: Otherwise, the Constitution would be in conflict with God.
Huckabee first observed that some of his opponents don't want to amend the Constitution on both of these topics. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
An otherwise-forgettable opinion piece by some comedy writer I read this morning assessed the comic skills of the various candidates and concluded that, on both sides, this season's candidates are among the most painfully earnest and stodgy bunch within recent memory. Only Huckabee, he reckoned, really seems to have much of a sense of humor. Humor not being a quality I prize all that highly in politicians, I hadn't thought about the election in those terms before, but I can kind of see his point--it's one of the most "humanizing" qualities there is, and may well be a key factor in his surprising success thus far, despite the long list of ways in which he seems anything but highly electable.
MrsSpringsteen said:
But which version of God's standards should it be amended to? Episcopalian? Baptist? Lutheran? Catholic? Muslim? Jewish?
Because after all, the government must serve those of faith above all others, amirite?
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
MrsSpringsteen said:
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
He's mighty stubborn if it really is so hard to change the word (read: mind) of the "living God".
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Majoritarianist.Diemen said:
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Jesus is the King of America (period)
Last edited:
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Sounds like a case for anarchism then! Or are other kinds of "temporal" authorities OK, so long as they're not technically "kings"?
Would that be the great 20th-century theologian, John Ashcroft?
Would that be the great 20th-century theologian, John Ashcroft?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
yes
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
yolland said:
MrsSpringsteen said:
Anybody who wants a good laugh should go to Alan Keyes' website. This guy makes Huckabee look like an atheist.
http://www.alankeyes.com/
Watch that video on his home page.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
The candidate for religious superstition is quite a fright, although Alan Keyes is scary because he can be persuasive for a very anti-freedom agenda if given soundbites.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Beliefnet interview
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/228/story_22873_1.html
One of the comments you’ve made that’s getting a lot of discussion in the press is the point you made in the last day or so that we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God’s standards. Do you want to elaborate on that? In particular the question of people who might hear that and think, “Well, that’s a conversation stopper,” people who might agree with you on policy but feel that the constitution is secular document and should be driven by secular concerns rather than aligning it with God’s word
Well, I probably said it awkwardly, but the point I was trying to make– and I’ve said it better in the past – is that people sometimes say we shouldn’t have a human life amendment or a marriage amendment because the Constitution is far too sacred to change, and my point is, the Constitution was created as a document that could be changed. That’s the genius of it. The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture. If we have a definition of marriage, that we don’t change that definition, that we affirm that definition. And that the sanctity of human life is not just a religious issue. It’s an issue that goes to the very heart of our civilization of all people being equal, endowed by their creator with alienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the point. The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was. Without amendments to the Constitution, women couldn’t vote, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people. We have had to historically go back and to clarify, because there’ve been injustices made because the Constitution wasn’t as clear as it needed to be, and that’s the point.
Just to follow up on that question, according to that standard, if the Constitution and its amendments are subject to biblical interpretations, doesn’t that mean it would be subject to biblical argument over what the proper interpretation is? And where does that leave, say, nonbelievers or members of other faiths in a proudly pluralistic like our own when amendments to the Constitution are subject to a biblical interpretation?
I think that whether someone is a Christian or not, the idea that a human life has dignity and intrinsic worth should be clear enough. I don’t think a person has to be a person of faith to say that once you redefine a human life and say there is a life not worth living, and that we have a right to terminate a human life because of its inconvenience to others in the society. That’s the real issue. That’s the heart of it. It’s not just about being against abortion. It’s really about, Is there is a point at which a human life, because it’s become a burden or inconvenience to others, is an expendable life. And once we’ve made a decision that there is such a time – whether it’s the termination of an unborn child in the womb or whether it’s the termination of an 80-year-old comatose patient -- we’ve already crossed that line. And then the question is, How far and how quickly do we move past that line?
And the same thing would be true of marriage. Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?
Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.
Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal . Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/228/story_22873_1.html
One of the comments you’ve made that’s getting a lot of discussion in the press is the point you made in the last day or so that we might need to amend the Constitution to have it apply more to God’s standards. Do you want to elaborate on that? In particular the question of people who might hear that and think, “Well, that’s a conversation stopper,” people who might agree with you on policy but feel that the constitution is secular document and should be driven by secular concerns rather than aligning it with God’s word
Well, I probably said it awkwardly, but the point I was trying to make– and I’ve said it better in the past – is that people sometimes say we shouldn’t have a human life amendment or a marriage amendment because the Constitution is far too sacred to change, and my point is, the Constitution was created as a document that could be changed. That’s the genius of it. The Bible, however, was not created to be amended and altered with each passing culture. If we have a definition of marriage, that we don’t change that definition, that we affirm that definition. And that the sanctity of human life is not just a religious issue. It’s an issue that goes to the very heart of our civilization of all people being equal, endowed by their creator with alienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was the point. The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was. Without amendments to the Constitution, women couldn’t vote, African-Americans wouldn’t be considered people. We have had to historically go back and to clarify, because there’ve been injustices made because the Constitution wasn’t as clear as it needed to be, and that’s the point.
Just to follow up on that question, according to that standard, if the Constitution and its amendments are subject to biblical interpretations, doesn’t that mean it would be subject to biblical argument over what the proper interpretation is? And where does that leave, say, nonbelievers or members of other faiths in a proudly pluralistic like our own when amendments to the Constitution are subject to a biblical interpretation?
I think that whether someone is a Christian or not, the idea that a human life has dignity and intrinsic worth should be clear enough. I don’t think a person has to be a person of faith to say that once you redefine a human life and say there is a life not worth living, and that we have a right to terminate a human life because of its inconvenience to others in the society. That’s the real issue. That’s the heart of it. It’s not just about being against abortion. It’s really about, Is there is a point at which a human life, because it’s become a burden or inconvenience to others, is an expendable life. And once we’ve made a decision that there is such a time – whether it’s the termination of an unborn child in the womb or whether it’s the termination of an 80-year-old comatose patient -- we’ve already crossed that line. And then the question is, How far and how quickly do we move past that line?
And the same thing would be true of marriage. Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?
Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.
Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal . Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.
Similar threads
