so...Mike Huckabee. - Page 32 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-07-2008, 06:17 PM   #466
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Huckabee is worse than Bush.
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.

__________________

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 05:09 PM   #467
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 05:23 AM
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."
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 06:35 PM   #468
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:23 AM
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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 06:43 PM   #469
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 04:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
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."
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?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 06:45 PM   #470
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 02:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
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."
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 06:49 PM   #471
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 11:23 AM
He's mighty stubborn if it really is so hard to change the word (read: mind) of the "living God".
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 06:53 PM   #472
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
But which version of God's standards should it be amended to? Episcopalian? Baptist? Lutheran? Catholic? Muslim? Jewish?
Majoritarianist.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 07:00 PM   #473
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:23 AM
Jesus is the King of America (period)


Quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different. We have no king but Jesus.


My mind thinking about that once raced back a couple of thousand years, when Pilate stepped before the people in Jerusalem and said, "Whom would ye that I release unto you? Barabas? Or Jesus, which is called the Christ?" And when they said "Barabas," he said, "But what about Jesus? King of the Jews?" And the outcry was, "We have no king but Caesar."

There's a difference between a culture that has no king but Caesar, no standard but the civil authority, and a culture that has no king but Jesus, no standard but the eternal authority. When you have no king but Caesar, you release Barabas' criminality, destruction, thievery, the lowest and least. When you have no king but Jesus, you release the eternal, you release the highest and best, you release virtue, you release potential.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 07:36 PM   #474
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:23 AM
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?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 07:49 PM   #475
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:23 AM
yes
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 08:41 PM   #476
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 02:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Majoritarianist.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-15-2008, 09:59 PM   #477
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
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."


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.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 01-16-2008, 05:20 AM   #478
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:23 PM
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.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-17-2008, 03:24 PM   #479
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 05:23 AM
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.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-17-2008, 03:42 PM   #480
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 05:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
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?
Ah, there it is. The goat fucking argument.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com