-
So I heard an interview on the radio the other day with Mike "Slick Hucky" Huckabee. Apparently his goal in staying in the race is to keep McCain from reaching the majority of delegates necessary to assure victory, thus forcing it to go to the convention. He thinks that in an atmosphere devoid of all the liberal "moderate" types, he'd pimp smack mcdaddy.
Any thoughts? Think it'll work?
-
I don't think "Slick Hucky" works at all. Just doesn't roll off the tongue well at all.
Maybe "Mike Schmuckabee" or something.
-
I can think of a certain word that rhymes with "huck" that could be mixed with "upbee" that would make a fairly good slur, but it wouldn't pas the scrutiny of the mods here, methinks...
-
I wonder how Ron Paul will fit into this, any ideas?
If all works out this little idea will cost Huckabee and McCain the election. Then we will have a POTUS who actually gives a damn about the Bill of Rights.
We can only hope and pray.
-
McCain will be Chuck-slapped, and then Obama. Huckabee will be the next president, but only as the puppet of Chuck Norris. But aren't we all?
I wonder how Ron Paul will fit into this, any ideas?
As dinner theater?
-
For the last seven years we have had something much less than dinner theatre.
Dinner theatre ... yes, I could handle that.Watching the ATF brought to heel, the IRS. Sounds like a small army of public servants and one private making lots of facial contortions, snarling and scurrying around looking for real jobs. If that would not be entertaining enough; plenty of shouting, hand gesturing and perhaps even pounding fists at the "U.N." as they get their eviction notice from U.S. soil. And that's just some highlights.
Yes, I could handle some dinner theatre.
----------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
-
So I heard an interview on the radio the other day with Mike "Slick Hucky" Huckabee. Apparently his goal in staying in the race is to keep McCain from reaching the majority of delegates necessary to assure victory, thus forcing it to go to the convention. He thinks that in an atmosphere devoid of all the liberal "moderate" types, he'd pimp smack mcdaddy.
Any thoughts? Think it'll work?
That would be friggin awesome, but I don't think the Huckster is that smart and I don't see McCain getting shutout, though that would be awesome.
-
I wonder how Ron Paul will fit into this, any ideas?
Comic relief. With a drum hit and canned laughter.
-
I wonder how Ron Paul will fit into this, any ideas?
If all works out this little idea will cost Huckabee and McCain the election. Then we will have a POTUS who actually gives a damn about the Bill of Rights.
We can only hope and pray.
Okay so who are you supporting in this mess? Your post sounds like you're supporting Paul....your sig says Col. Momar Obama for Supreme Leader....
IMHO, I think Dr. Paul is hanging in there for one of two reasons:
1) to snag a Veep spot.
2) to maintain momentum and support as a third party candidate.
-
Okay so who are you supporting in this mess? Your post sounds like you're supporting Paul....your sig says Col. Momar Obama for Supreme Leader....
Another example of the Paulites pretending to be clever.
-
Given his statist notions, I nominate "Motherhucker" as Official Nickname of Mike Huckabee.
If Huck & Paul get the nomination tossed into the smoke-filled back rooms, I say, "Yea!" I wouldn't bet on it, as the gOP leadership is falling in line and bending over for McCain.
-
Paul would be great if all the crazies didn't spout weirdness around him.
-
For the last seven years we have had something
much less than dinner theatre.
Dinner theatre ... yes, I could handle that.Watching the ATF brought to heel, the IRS. Sounds like a small army of public servants and one private making lots of facial contortions, snarling and scurrying around looking for
real jobs. If that would not be entertaining enough; plenty of shouting, hand gesturing and perhaps even pounding fists at the "U.N." as they get their eviction notice from U.S. soil. And that's just some highlights.
Yes, I could handle some dinner theatre.
----------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.comhttp://ussliberty.org/oldindex.htmlhttp://www.gtr5.comhttp://ssunitedstates.org
Make that a table for two.....
-
I wonder how Ron Paul will fit into this, any ideas?
If all works out this little idea will cost Huckabee and McCain the election. Then we will have a POTUS who actually gives a damn about the Bill of Rights.
We can only hope and pray.
Okay so who are you supporting in this mess? Your post sounds like you're supporting Paul....your sig says Col. Momar Obama for Supreme Leader....
IMHO, I think Dr. Paul is hanging in there for one of two reasons:
1) to snag a Veep spot.
2) to maintain momentum and support as a third party candidate.
Actually if you type www.barackObama2008.com into your browser it takes you to www.ronpaul2008.com instead.
A quickthinking Ron Paul supporter snagged that domain name for the cause. I find it humorous. Who is Col. Momar Obama?
I doubt Ron Paul would take the VP spot from these fascists and statists. I also dont think he plans to run as an independent, though I will write him in anyway.
-
Well, personally, I think the guys are in it for the money.
If they get $$$ for their campaign stuff, they essentially _keep_ it after they quit. It doesn't go to some national organization. It stays with them, in case they ever want to run again. And they can use on fact-finding stuff... Like to Vegas...
-
I don't think Huckabee can win enough delegates to force things to go to the convention. Perhaps if Romney had stayed in the race the two of them could have siphoned off enough delegates.
I think ego and the desire for fame and importance are the biggest reasons that Huckabee is staying in the race.
Perhaps at first he was angling for the Veep job, but I think he's making himself too much of a thorn in McCain's side by staying in the race. McCain is not the forgiving type.
I also think that Huckabee is advancing his own political fortunes. If he stays in the race to the bitter end, he can go back to his supports and spout more of his populist drivel. "See? I tried to win the race, I tried really really really hard. But those dastardly rich powerful establishment people just wouldn't let an outsider win. It's all about keeping the common man down, don't ya see? That's why all of you need me,someone who is willing to fight for the common man, even if it's a losing fight."
-
Well, personally, I think the guys are in it for the money.
If they get $$$ for their campaign stuff, they essentially _keep_ it after they quit. It doesn't go to some national organization. It stays with them, in case they ever want to run again. And they can use on fact-finding stuff... Like to Vegas...
Huckabee doesn't have any campaign money. He's run his entire race on a shoestring budget, and there won't be much left when its over.
-
Looks like it's over with Romney's endorsement. McCain only needs a handful more delegates to win out before the convention now.
-
Guys, there's budgets, and there's BUDGETS... A national presidential campaign has so much going around that it's sick...
I don't trust ANYONE in politics.
-
we can only hope that works.
Say what you like about Huckabee, I like him. And you damn sure can't say he'd be a worse nominee then McCain.
-
we can only hope that works.
Say what you like about Huckabee, I like him. And you damn sure can't say he'd be a worse nominee then McCain.
At least McCain hasn't suggested that we change the US constitution "to fit God's standards."
Sorry, I don't like the idea of having a theocrat in office.
-
we can only hope that works.
Say what you like about Huckabee, I like him. And you damn sure can't say he'd be a worse nominee then McCain.
At least McCain hasn't suggested that we change the US constitution "to fit God's standards."
Sorry, I don't like the idea of having a theocrat in office.
If Huckabee's invisible friend in the sky is an avid 2A supporter, I'm all for it. I bet God would repeal the NFA of 34, the GCA of 68, and the 86 Ban.....
-
Quote
Look man... I'm not here to debate with you. I just find it laughable how you jump into threads to stir up trouble. Your pseudo-intellectual verbal vomitus isn't impressive, and I'm getting tired of reading somewhat interesting threads only to have a complete "WTF" moment when I reach your post.
James Fitzer to Tecumse
Jake, if you're going to copy a quote from someone's signature, you should copy the entire quote. Tecumseh
-
we can only hope that works.
Say what you like about Huckabee, I like him. And you damn sure can't say he'd be a worse nominee then McCain.
At least McCain hasn't suggested that we change the US constitution "to fit God's standards."
Sorry, I don't like the idea of having a theocrat in office.
If anything, the founding fathers were more religious then Huckabee. And just what has he proposed that you don't agree with? I don't care to hear you don't like his reason, I want to hear jsut what he wants done you disagree with.
-
If anything, the founding fathers were more religious then Huckabee. And just what has he proposed that you don't agree with? I don't care to hear you don't like his reason, I want to hear jsut what he wants done you disagree with.
Many founding fathers, in fact, WEREN'T more religious than Huckabee. Take Jefferson, for example, who was a Deist (they believed in god, but not the Christian version). Many, like Jefferson, wanted to keep the Church and State completely separate (hence the 1st Amendment). James Madison, writer of most of the constitution, also believed they should be kept separate, and fought and won against a proposed Virginia legislative act that would have levied a tax for the general support of Christian churches.
And most religious leaders at the time were beginning to believe they didn't need government to regulate religious laws, and that they could achieve their goals without government help. As Isaac Backus, a Baptist leader at the time put it, "Christ's kingdom is not of this world."
Finally, the fact that there were so many religious factions in America at the time, most of whom had fled England due to the Anglican Church's dominance, made having a religious government completely untenable. After all, whose version of the Bible should they have enforced, the Quakers? The Protestants? Catholics? Baptists? Anglicans?
For this reason, the Founders meant the Constitution to be Secular in nature. They made references to god, but not to a specific god of any one denomination. Thus, having Huckabee "fix" the constitution to fit his Baptist ideals is completely counter to what the Founders had in mind.
As for the specific goals of Huckabee? His anti-gay marriage proposals and stances doesn't particularly sit well with me (the government has no business regulating what two adults do in their bedroom, and frankly I don't see a need for them to regulate marriage in the first place), and neither does his professed belief that creationism should be taught in science classes.
-
we can only hope that works.
Say what you like about Huckabee, I like him. And you damn sure can't say he'd be a worse nominee then McCain.
At least McCain hasn't suggested that we change the US constitution "to fit God's standards."
Sorry, I don't like the idea of having a theocrat in office.
If anything, the founding fathers were more religious then Huckabee. And just what has he proposed that you don't agree with? I don't care to hear you don't like his reason, I want to hear jsut what he wants done you disagree with.
Not true at all. In their private lives they were deists, aethists, and agnostics.
-
Oh gawds, not this stuff again!
I don't care what the Founding Fathers worshiped: it's entirely beside the point.
Huckabee has said he wants to "bring the Constitution more in line with the Bible", or some such. Since I don't follow the Bible, that makes me a touch nervous. Now, if someone could please explain what, PRECISELY, he means by that, I might even vote for him...
-
I believe he's proposing some kind of no gay marriage and no abortion type amendments.
-
I believe he's proposing some kind of no gay marriage and no abortion type amendments.
And to be fair he should also propose a concubine amendment also.
-
i will NOT get involved in the abortion debate: can't really "decide" that one via someone's rights, as either direction can be argued as violating the rights of somebody.
The whole "gay marriage" thing is starting to piss me off, actually. So long as the people involved are adults, and enter into things of their own free will, the government should keep their noses out of it. I have yet to hear a decent argument against gay marriage that didn't involve some form of religious view...
So, thank you for explaining why I can't (in good faith) vote for Huck.
-
I don't really know why the .gov is involved in any form of marriage. It'd take, what? Three non-marriage documents to provide people with all the legal results of marriage without all the angst.
-
This is probably getting a little off topic, But I have never really gotten all the hubbub over "gay marriage" either. It always seemed a little silly that it was so difficult to me. Marriage IS defined as a commitment between a man and a woman. Heterosexual love is defined as being between a man and a woman, just as a man having sexual feelings for another man is defined as homosexuality. That is how it has always been. Why would they want to be defined by something that is clearly not a correct definition. We don't call them "straight", so why should we call their committed relationships "marriages"?
So the question I have, is why don't both sides just accept that, and let the "gays" come up with a new word? I say it is completely irrelevant to the law. If they want to commit to each other, then they should have all the same rights that a normal marriage has, tax benefits, wills, property rights. Just call it something else so the ridiculous religious fanatics no longer have anything to complain about.
-
I believe he's proposing some kind of no gay marriage and no abortion type amendments.
And to be fair he should also propose a concubine amendment also.
I'd vote for that just from a public safety aspect......one wife is more than any man can handle...