Why do your beliefs that there is nothing wrong with this outweigh the belief from someone else that thinks it is wrong. All of us have beliefs and they are based off of something. You just choose to criticize in certain cases because the beliefs are different from yours and it is easy to identify where these beliefs are identified from. Every moral issue is going to have 2 sides and when setting rules, the beliefs of whoever is in charge are going to have an influence regardless of where those beliefs come from. In the case of Huckabee, from everything I've seen he isn't anything close to Jerry Falwell and has stated that he has no desire to push his religion onto the public, and this thread is an example of the fear-mongering that some people resort to when trying to tear someone down.
How can that not be the same? You can't just say it without backing up your argument. With your statement you are saying you do not want someone to oppose their moral rights on another person. Apparently that is done in the United States with laws. So why does that make it right for you to decide what morals we should follow and what morals we shouldn't? Relative truth is a tricky game to play my friend.
Laws should be nothing but an organization of society that protects individual rights, not enforcing a moral code onto them. It's really not about morals at all. In fact you do and should have the right to be "immoral" in many circumstances. Do you see what happened with prohibition? That should be enough should shoot down your theory.
All valid points. I don't know much about Huckabee other than his famed weight loss story. I find him to be the most interesting candidate on the GOP side and I reminded myself to keep an open mind on him. The post you quoted was my question to JV, who says he is an atheist. I am more curious to know his take on Huckabee in that context.
Though I would agree that laws are served to protect individual rights in some sense, but in others there is a sense of moral beliefs that brings about these individual rights. We have the right to do "immoral" things and it is protected by the law, but in the end it is who determines what is allowed and what is not? We did see what happened with prohibition and probably why America abuses alcohol so much is because of the backlash of it (look at how Europe handles their alcohol). But what about weed for example? Why is that illegal in the States? It can't be any worse than cigarettes or alcohol could it? Why do I not have the individual rights to purchase and use mar1juana? What I am trying to say is, each politician/person brings their own sets of morals and beliefs while running for president. Don't mistaken a "tolerant" politician to be better than a "moral" politician. Because ironically, it seems that tolerance and relativism hates absolutes, yet the very belief of that is an absolute. I am probably rambling. my two cents.
This is getting close to the countless threads we had on seperation of church and state. I guess someone can dig them up.
No. That's not the case with Huckabee. According to the candidate calculators, we agree half the time which is nearly twice as often as I agree with Romney or Obama, and more than twice as often as I agree with Edwards or the Clinton-Guiliani twins. Normally, if the major-party candidate who matched me closest agreed with me half the time, I would vote for an independent or third-party candidate. I just think that the Fair Tax is such a step forward that I could ignore the 50% of the issues where we diverge. To me, Huckabee is a palatable compromise candidate who happens to support one issue that I strongly believe in. He's not as liberal as Edwards or Obama, and he's not a neocon like Hillary, Giuliani, or McCain. He certainly wouldn't be my first or second choice, but he's not a bad choice either.
Don't be surprised by Obama's neocon-ism if he is elected. Didn't he say last summer that he would invade Pakistan as the U.S. President? I loved the scene where many of the liberal/Democrat anti-BushWarers quickly jumped to Obama's defense while the Bush supporters jumped on him for the proposed military adventure. The 180 degree turns on both sides were almost spontaneous, simultaneous, and comical.
No, he didn't. And Obama's views on Pakistan have nothing to do with the twisted neocon vision for the middle east.
Honestly, if Huckabee is elected, what do you think is the chance of him actually pushing through the Fair Tax.
I honestly don't know. It has considerable bipartisan support in the House, but unfortunately almost no support in the Senate. I really think it will come down to what the public thinks about it, once it's on the table.
As bucket said, this is BS. What he DID say was that if we had actionable intelligence about Bin Laden's whereabouts and Musharraf refused to act he would. In other words, if he knew where the murderer of 3,000 Americans were he would give orders to kill or capture him. Pretty radical, huh? At the time everybody jumped down his throat. Since then, they have all come around to his position -- Republicans and Democrats.
p.s. to weslinder: I replied to you in the Obama Wins thread asking if you actually had information that Huckabee had changed his position on "isolating" AIDS victims. My understanding is that he stands by it, but I'd love to know about it if his position has changed.
I believe his explanation was that at that time (late 80's?), he would have isolated them because there wasn't enough information about it. I think it was a nicer way of saying he would have quarantined them. I didn't know aobut the disease during that time, but if there is some sort of disease that is spreading like wildfire and killing people left and right and I don't know anything about it, then I'd probably want to quarantine those affected by it till we got some more reliable data.
thank you Josh. well said. there is at least one good thing coming out of this. The elitist Republicans are showing their true colors. If the Dems made a serious push for the Evangelical vote, they could probably win a bundle of them.
First, I believe he said it in 92 (I might be wrong). At that point you had to be living under a rock not to know about the disease. In the late 80s too, frankly. Regardless of what was known then it was an incredibly insensitive remark from a politician that is known for his strongly held anti-gay bias (for example, he has compared homosexuality to necrophilia and beastiality). Regardless of that, I'm really just looking for a link showing that he has corrected the statement. I'd heard he still stood by it but weslinder said he'd changed his mind. Just looking for the truth.
the reports I've read also say he's changed his mind, but noone provides any sort of link. and you're right, he did say it in 1992. in any case, it's not bothersome for me, no candidate's perfect.
BJ, here is the 5-month old thread to refresh your memory: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=132995&page=1&pp=20&highlight=Pakistan I'd like you to point out which one in my post you just quoted is BS? The invasion part? He sure did not use the specific term "invasion/invade" in reference to Pakistan, but it was clearly implied in his speech, and understood by both sides of the political isle, his friends and foes, the media, military analysts, and your average Joes. Wrong. The opinions were highly divided, mostly along the political/partisan line at the time, and I have failed to see how and since when everyone has come around to his position. You are painting quite a revisionist picture on this matter.
Yeah, but still92 not 82, in 1992! He should've known more, if you recall, the rest of the world did.
