Huckabee

[PillyPill 0]

I'll take up, very briefly, where BigD gave up:1) so if the majority of the nation decides that gay marriage is great and socialized medicine is great and that signing the Kyoto Accord is great, then you'll just sit back quietly and shut up, saying, "well, I guess the majority's wishes should silence mine"?2) public property belongs to ALL the people in a community, not just the Christians. There's something in the phrase "representing everyone" that you're just not getting.3) if they shouldn't be offended by a manger, why are you offended that other displays sit beside that manger?

I am not. I think that they should post numerous religious symbols up if they do a manger. But if the only remaining religious holiday is Christmas, then let it be Christmas. Plus, why is a manger so offensive? What about it makes you feel hurt?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Lying? I may have been overexaggerating, but I was not lying. Tell you what. Ask me a question and I will answer it calmly this time. And also, I do not listen to Michael Savage (and before you say it, neither do I listen to Hannity or Rush), but he can atleast spell the words somewhat correctly while he is lying. So anyways, ask me something and we will start a real dialogue...to make your night.

Why on earth do you think there's some question I want you to answer? My interest in your political opinion and insight ended when you posted" the ACLU and Hillary and Obama certainly don't want you to be able to celebrate your own religion" because that tells me everything I need to know. I don't care that you're conservative, I debate with BG all the time. I do care that you're an idiot. And statements like the above aren't about dialog, they are about stirring bs and lies. But that spelling blast was real, real fresh.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I am not. I think that they should post numerous religious symbols up if they do a manger. But if the only remaining religious holiday is Christmas, then let it be Christmas. Plus, why is a manger so offensive? What about it makes you feel hurt?

Personally, not a thing. But unlike you, I don't presume that everyone else should live by what I think. Edit (I always wind up adding thoughts): if someone is pissed off by something, they have the right to make it known. People also have the right to say, yeah, you're offended, but I'm doing it my way, and everybody goes on their way. Everyone had a chance to make themselves heard and everyone made their own choices. That's cool. But that's private interaction. The government is in the business of representing every citizen as though each one of them were exactly equal to any other. They do not have the ability to say, yeah, well, we're only decorating for the Christians. Needless to say, the ACLU is not seizing your personal manger display, nor are Hillary or Obama.

[PillyPill 0]

Why on earth do you think there's some question I want you to answer? My interest in your political opinion and insight ended when you posted" the ACLU and Hillary and Obama certainly don't want you to be able to celebrate your own religion" because that tells me everything I need to know. I don't care that you're conservative, I debate with BG all the time. I do care that you're an idiot. And statements like the above aren't about dialog, they are about stirring bs and lies. But that spelling blast was real, real fresh.

I know I sounded like an idiot before, so now I want to change to a more calm demeanor.

[PillyPill 0]

Personally, not a thing. But unlike you, I don't presume that everyone else should live by what I think.

I don't think that. I support everyone to live how they want to live in the micro realm. But in the macro realm, we cannot say that 2% of our community gets to make a rule against the remaining 98%.

[PillyPill 0]

Personally, not a thing. But unlike you, I don't presume that everyone else should live by what I think. Edit (I always wind up adding thoughts): if someone is pissed off by something, they have the right to make it known. People also have the right to say, yeah, you're offended, but I'm doing it my way, and everybody goes on their way. Everyone had a chance to make themselves heard and everyone made their own choices. That's cool. But that's private interaction. The government is in the business of representing every citizen as though each one of them were exactly equal to any other. They do not have the ability to say, yeah, well, we're only decorating for the Christians. Needless to say, the ACLU is not seizing your personal manger display, nor are Hillary or Obama.

That is a lie. The Ten Commandments mural? I am sure if I researched it, I could find plenty more examples, but it is too late for research.

[PillyPill 0]

Uh Oh...Negreanu was reading this. I am in trouble now.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I know I sounded like an idiot before, so now I want to change to a more calm demeanor.

Well, I do appreciate your contrition, but really, there's no topic less interesting to me then the plight of the poor, oppressed christian. It's one of the most ridiculous red herring non-issues the right have ever manufactured to trick the poor into voting for republican. When you guys wanna get back to handicapping the various candidates and talking about the strengths and weaknesses of the various potential vps, let me know, I find that topic far more interesting

[PillyPill 0]

Well, I do appreciate your contrition, but really, there's no topic less interesting to me then the plight of the poor, oppressed christian. It's one of the most ridiculous red herring non-issues the right have ever manufactured to trick the poor into voting for republican. When you guys wanna get back to handicapping the various candidates and talking about the strengths and weaknesses of the various potential vps, let me know, I find that topic far more interesting

And this was not some comment to stir up BS? Now you are the hypocrite.

[PillyPill 0]

And to somewhat change the subject, DN started this thread by saying that he "may COMPLETELY disagree...". I don't think that is true. I think DN, you would agree with the majority of his immigration plan. I also think you would support his Flat/Fair Tax idea. And there are a few other things that you would agree with him on. But those are two major ones.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

And this was not some comment to stir up BS? Now you are the hypocrite.

No, it wasn't ended to stir it up, it was a declaration of non-interest. If iit were up to me, I'd yank all churches, of all religion's and denotations, of their tax exempt status. As long as donations to churches are tax deductible, it's hard for me to muster up too much sympathy for the poor, oppressed Christian majority of this country. I personally couldn't care less if a manger was or wasn't on a lawn, or the 10 commandments were or weren't displayed somewhere. They are, like I said, red herring non-issues used to distract people from real one.

[PillyPill 0]

No, it wasn't ended to stir it up, it was a declaration of non-interest. If iit were up to me, I'd yank all churches, of all religion's and denotations, of their tax exempt status. As long as donations to churches are tax deductible, it's hard for me to muster up too much sympathy for the poor, oppressed Christian majority of this country. I personally couldn't care less if a manger was or wasn't on a lawn, or the 10 commandments were or weren't displayed somewhere. They are, like I said, red herring non-issues used to distract people from real one.

"...the right have ever manufactured to trick the poor into voting for republican...."I was more worried about that line.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

"...the right have ever manufactured to trick the poor into voting for republican...."I was more worried about that line.

well, I don't mean manufactured in the sense that there's a council of 5 evil republican's, planning issues to fool the plebes. But I do think it's the miracle of modern politics that the Republican party gets millions and millions of people to vote directly against their economic self-interest, because of retarded red herring issues like the war on christmas, or gay marriage, or any other stupid thing.

[PillyPill 0]

well, I don't mean manufactured in the sense that there's a council of 5 evil republican's, planning issues to fool the plebes. But I do think it's the miracle of modern politics that the Republican party gets millions and millions of people to vote directly against their economic self-interest, because of retarded red herring issues like the war on christmas, or gay marriage, or any other stupid thing.

WTF are you talking about? First off, even if part of that were true, good point. What morons to actually vote on their morals and not on the BS coming in speeches! Jesus! What are they thinking?Secondly, how is voting Republican against their economic self-interest? Republicans are for lower taxes, Democrats more taxes. Republicans are for free trade, Democrats are not. Democrats want to tax the upper percent of people in our country (also known as the people who write your paycheck and may decide not to if they keep getting bled to death), Republicans want to promote small businesses. The Left wants to sue Oil companies and sue Pharmaceutical companies and sue Mortgage lenders to basically decide how much profit you are allowed to gain. Great way to motivate hard work.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

WTF are you talking about? First off, even if part of that were true, good point. What morons to actually vote on their morals and not on the BS coming in speeches! Jesus! What are they thinking?Secondly, how is voting Republican against their economic self-interest? Republicans are for lower taxes, Democrats more taxes. Republicans are for free trade, Democrats are not. Democrats want to tax the upper percent of people in our country (also known as the people who write your paycheck and may decide not to if they keep getting bled to death), Republicans want to promote small businesses. The Left wants to sue Oil companies and sue Pharmaceutical companies and sue Mortgage lenders to basically decide how much profit you are allowed to gain. Great way to motivate hard work.

save the idiots guide to trickle down economics for someone who gives a sht.

[PillyPill 0]

save the idiots guide to trickle down economics for someone who gives a sht.

You know what, I never thought about it this way. Man, was I wrong! I guess I better shut the **** up since that makes so much sense. Keep telling me no facts and just saying things to piss me off. Makes you look good.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

You know what, I never thought about it this way. Man, was I wrong! I guess I better shut the **** up since that makes so much sense. Keep telling me no facts and just saying things to piss me off. Makes you look good.

I've told you repeatedly that I don't give a shit about this. I'm not trying to debate you, I'm not trying to prove you wrong or right. I Don't give a shit. Talking to you about this would be about as fun as a head trauma.

[PillyPill 0]

I've told you repeatedly that I don't give a shit about this. I'm not trying to debate you, I'm not trying to prove you wrong or right. I Don't give a shit. Talking to you about this would be about as fun as a head trauma.

And yet for some reason, you keep clicking the reply button. If the above is true, then just Shut the **** Up.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

When you guys wanna get back to handicapping the various candidates and talking about the strengths and weaknesses of the various potential vps, let me know, I find that topic far more interesting

Very much agreed. Hillary has apparently been floating the possibility of a "dream ticket," hinting that she and Obama could team up after the nomination. Pundits seem to be of the opinion that this would help her campaign more than Obama's, to solidify the support that was for her initially but is trickling away steadily to him. Obama's camp says nothing. Her assumption, of course, is that she would be at the top of the ticket since she has "more experience," but naturally I'd say it would make more sense for the top of the ticket to be the one actually ahead in delegates, i.e., Obama.Who thinks that EITHER Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton would be a "dream ticket," in that it would united the evenly split party? Do you think McCain would feel forced to pick a minority as a running mate to blunt the charge?Just wondering: who thinks McCain will pick someone to his right politically, and who thinks he will thumb his nose at the right and pick another moderate? Colin Powell??? Both military, both moderate, an answer to Obama's history-making run ... that would be interesting.Me, I'd love to see Obama/Gore, especially with the relaxed, easygoing Gore that came out once he left politics. I think that would be a ticket that would kill.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Very much agreed. Hillary has apparently been floating the possibility of a "dream ticket," hinting that she and Obama could team up after the nomination. Pundits seem to be of the opinion that this would help her campaign more than Obama's, to solidify the support that was for her initially but is trickling away steadily to him. Obama's camp says nothing. Her assumption, of course, is that she would be at the top of the ticket since she has "more experience," but naturally I'd say it would make more sense for the top of the ticket to be the one actually ahead in delegates, i.e., Obama.Who thinks that EITHER Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton would be a "dream ticket," in that it would united the evenly split party? Do you think McCain would feel forced to pick a minority as a running mate to blunt the charge?Just wondering: who thinks McCain will pick someone to his right politically, and who thinks he will thumb his nose at the right and pick another moderate? Colin Powell??? Both military, both moderate, an answer to Obama's history-making run ... that would be interesting.Me, I'd love to see Obama/Gore, especially with the relaxed, easygoing Gore that came out once he left politics. I think that would be a ticket that would kill.

I think Hilary needs Obama much more than Obama needs Hillary as running mates. Obama would be a great campaign partner, he's a great speaker, and he'd appeal to non traditional black voters. But I think Hillary as Obama's VP could actually hurt him. HIllary is a rather polarizing figure, whom people really hate, and Obama, at least not yet, doesn't strike up that venom that Hillary does ( we'll call it the "She's a bitch" factor that DN illustrated) I don't think it would really cost obama votes, but I don't think it would help him with votes either. Gore has alot of baggage, and I don't think he'd want another VP gig. I think Edwards is Obama's likely partner, but it will more likely be someone out of left field. Colin Powell would be a dream VP for McCain, everyone loves him, he's really bright. I just don't think he's interested in the job. I think Rudy Guilani would be the best of the former GOP presidential candidates. But again, it could end up being someone like Qualye, someone not on anyone's radar right now. Sleeper pick... Chuck Hagel, Senator from Nebraska. Hagel's been a sharp critique of Bush, and with the economy in the crapper and Bush's numbers so low, McCain will probably want to distance himself as much from bush as he can.

[crowTrobot 2]

Me, I'd love to see Obama/Gore

yeah, that would be game over. wouldn't mind /edwards either.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Good points all. She definitely needs Obama more, and he knows it. I don't see any benefit in it at all for him, and a lot of downside (yep, the fact that she makes some people foam at the mouth). I don't think Gore wants the gig -- frankly, I think he's a happier man outside of politics than he ever was in it. But his "baggage," after eight years of President F-ckwit, is that he's the guy who should have won in 2000, part of the only administration in 40 years to balance the budget, the only veep to ever shrink the size of government (through his Reinventing Government initiative, he did what Republicans talk about but never do), and a symbol of intelligent competence. The Oscar, Grammy, and Nobel don't hurt, either.I'd like to see someone who inspires more passion than Edwards. When Obama was campaigning in Virginia, he mentioned my governor, Tim Kaine. Good guy, but even as a constituent, he doesn't fire me up much. Someone outside of politics entirely, like the head of a nonprofit aimed at helping the underprivileged, would be a really inspiring choice. Obv he can't pick Bono, and Bill Gates wouldn't take it, but someone along those lines, who's become really known for philanthropic work.Powell probably doesn't want the job, but I could see him bonding with McCain personally and being persuaded to take it as a friend, rather than to further his own ambition. Rudy would drive the right wing even further batty, with the cross-dressing and ugly divorces and all, but he'd carry NY.I can't see McCain doing it, but one Republican I have already voted for, and would vote for again in a heartbeat, is Christie Todd Whitman of New Jersey. She was a great governor and is a good person (I've met her a few times), and is the only former member of the Bush administration to come out of it not looking like a total chump. A co-worker of mine says Janet Napolitano, but I think Whitman has the best potential to be our first woman president.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Good points all. She definitely needs Obama more, and he knows it. I don't see any benefit in it at all for him, and a lot of downside (yep, the fact that she makes some people foam at the mouth). I don't think Gore wants the gig -- frankly, I think he's a happier man outside of politics than he ever was in it. But his "baggage," after eight years of President F-ckwit, is that he's the guy who should have won in 2000, part of the only administration in 40 years to balance the budget, the only veep to ever shrink the size of government (through his Reinventing Government initiative, he did what Republicans talk about but never do), and a symbol of intelligent competence. The Oscar, Grammy, and Nobel don't hurt, either.I'd like to see someone who inspires more passion than Edwards. When Obama was campaigning in Virginia, he mentioned my governor, Tim Kaine. Good guy, but even as a constituent, he doesn't fire me up much. Someone outside of politics entirely, like the head of a nonprofit aimed at helping the underprivileged, would be a really inspiring choice. Obv he can't pick Bono, and Bill Gates wouldn't take it, but someone along those lines, who's become really known for philanthropic work.Powell probably doesn't want the job, but I could see him bonding with McCain personally and being persuaded to take it as a friend, rather than to further his own ambition. Rudy would drive the right wing even further batty, with the cross-dressing and ugly divorces and all, but he'd carry NY.I can't see McCain doing it, but one Republican I have already voted for, and would vote for again in a heartbeat, is Christie Todd Whitman of New Jersey. She was a great governor and is a good person (I've met her a few times), and is the only former member of the Bush administration to come out of it not looking like a total chump. A co-worker of mine says Janet Napolitano, but I think Whitman has the best potential to be our first woman president.

I meant the baggage of being so visibly at the forefront of the envirnomental and global warming movement. It's insane that being a figure head for those things could be considered a bad thing, but I think he's lost a bit of credibility with middle of the road voters because of it, sadly enough. At this point, Gore would be appealing to the core of the party, but I mean, I don't think Obama would need help attracting them to vote. I think he'd be better off picking someone popular from a swing state like ohio that could tip the balance for him in the general. As for Rudy pissing off the right wing base.. it reminds me of the Movie Nixon, by oliver stone, where some oil company big wigs had a meeting with Nixon, pissed off that they weren't getting enough preferential treatment. Nixon told them to fck off, what were they going to do, contribute to McGovern's campaign? And that's really where the Christian right is. McCain only needs to kiss up to them in the primary, in the general he can tell them to f-off, not in so many words, but there's no way that base would vote for clintion anyway, so he doesn't need to worry about picking a candidate that appeases them.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

McCain only needs to kiss up to them in the primary, in the general he can tell them to f-off, not in so many words, but there's no way that base would vote for clintion anyway, so he doesn't need to worry about picking a candidate that appeases them.

Quite true. But McCain does need to worry about depressing Republican turnout, which is less than a quarter of Democratic turnout in the primary season. That 3:1 advantage won't hold up, but even five percentage points would mean defeat for him in November.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Quite true. But McCain does need to worry about depressing Republican turnout, which is less than a quarter of Democratic turnout in the primary season. That 3:1 advantage won't hold up, but even five percentage points would mean defeat for him in November.

yeah, that's why I want obama to win. I think hillary would bring out the "anti-hillary" vote and help GOP turn out. but I question how much a VP matters in getting people to turn out in the general, other than in home states.