Dems Hold Fire On Huckabee; See 'easy Kill' In General Election

If team Hillary thought Huckabee was a threat in the big election she and her team would take him out now. They do not believe in waiting for a problem to develop. Preemptive strike is her modus operandi.

That said, Huckabee crawled out of the same political swamp as the other two. Same moneyed interest. Same political constraints. Same target rich environment for judicious butt-kissing. Same social and political godfathers.

What makes anyone think a bright lite can come out of that mess. I don't like to say it but anyone, I repeat, anyone politically successful in that state has to have dirty skirts. It is inconceivable to me that a political force can emerge without the benefit of the political machine.

Don Tyson of chicken fame was important to Clinton and now we see huckabee was right there also. Clinton made accommodations with illegal immigration for the benefit of his food processing benefactors. Now we here the same thing about Huckabee.

I really do want to be idealistic as say Huckabee will ride in and save us from or stupidity of the past. Alas, can't say it because it thrived in the same political swamp as Clinton. Sorry, one was too much.
 
I don't like his past positions on illegal immigration or taxes. There is also something about him that makes me feel uneasy. Not quite sure what it is.

I have dealt with several pathological liars in the past. When I first saw Bill Clinton speak I recognized much the same facial characteristics and wondered why it was not obvious to others. I talked to many Bill Clinton supporters and they just did not see it.

With Huckabee it is not the same. I see something in his facial expressions when he is asked tough questions, but not the same as Bill Clinton at all. I just can't identify what it is.
 
Recently, when asked what caused his rise in the polls, he said divine intervention :rolleyes:

I don't want another Bible-thumper in charge, I'm getting so sick and tired of these people :barf:
 
The problem isn't that someone is religious; it's whether it will dictate their governance. I doubt any candidate would let authorities within their religion exert influence on presidential decisions which is not the same as having one’s belief system impact decisions.

BTW, any idea to whom this statement is attributed? "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
 
Anyone the media likes tends to garner my suspicion based on that alone. I for one refuse to forget how in love they were with McCain for almost a decade. That guy genuinely gives me the creeps. As for Huck, well, I can only honestly say I need more information.
 
this was said earlier:

What makes anyone think a bright lite can come out of that mess. I don't like to say it but anyone, I repeat, anyone politically successful in that state has to have dirty skirts. It is inconceivable to me that a political force can emerge without the benefit of the political machine.
Click to expand...

Name one current politician who does not have dirt on his or her shoes? Ron paul is not perfect although many would like to believe so. He has good ideas but too extreme to be good (abolishing the draft when the most aggressive super powers are more a threat than before. Read China/Russia. P.S. I am 21 and supported the draft when I was 19. A good tool if used when necessary and correctly)
 
Dirt

Forget just politicians, name any person on the planet who doesn't have some kind of dirt on them. People are expecting politicians to be perfect from the day they are born, not gonna happen. Heck, Communist Clinton went all the way back to Obama's 3rd grade and brought stuff up from then. Can you believe that!

Lg_mouth
 
Yeah, the Democrats are known for "holding their fire."

With the Dems running either a cocaine dealer who's middle name is Hussein and who loves every Kalashnikov carrying Muslim "freedom fighter" or a woman who's professional career can best be described as leading to the arrest, disbarment, and incarceration of all her colleagues at the Rose Law Firm..... I'm betting that there will be more rocks coming AT the Democrats glass house than FROM it.
 
What amazes me is the Repubs don't have enough sense to fight fire with fire.

If Hitlery get the Dems nomination, I say plant something on her to make her look real bad! :D cause you know she's going to do it to the repub nominee.

There's nothing fair in politics if you can get away with it, but the Repubs don't get this and so they'll probably loose.
 
What could you possibly PLANT on Hillary that will make her look worse?

All her past (meaning 80s and 90s) and some of her recent (meaning since running for the Senate) fundraisers are in jail.

All her law partners and junior associates, whom she supervised directly, went to jail.

Between her sliminess and her poorly hidden VERY liberal agenda, she's easy fodder. Not to mention she has the highest NEGATIVES of any candidate. She's in the range of Richard Nixon's numbers from the late 70s.

Noticed her poll numbers lately? And she can't just run away from Bill like Al Gore did. Hillary is running with the same slimy machine. All the faces are the same.

She's not going to be able to overcome this by buying a cat or hugging her mom on stage. I really believe she is toast.
 
What could you possibly PLANT on Hillary that will make her look worse?
Click to expand...
I'm sure it would have to be something illegal and you'd have to make sure she got caught red handed with all the news people standing there with cameras rolling!

Maybe 'ol Bill could get caught with his nose candy while in her limo with a couple of hooters girls!
That'd be funny!:D
 
What amazes me is the Repubs don't have enough sense to fight fire with fire.

If Hitlery get the Dems nomination, I say plant something on her to make her look real bad! cause you know she's going to do it to the repub nominee.

There's nothing fair in politics if you can get away with it, but the Repubs don't get this and so they'll probably loose.
Click to expand...

It seems like you're claiming that only Democratic candidates have ever used dirty tricks to win elections. Because John McCain's illegitimate black baby might disagree with you.

Yes, that was in the primary not the general, so Republican-on-Republican...but it just makes for such great jokes. I'm sure if we looked real hard we could find a few dirty tricks pulled by Republicans on Democrats over the years.
 
BTW, any idea to whom this statement is attributed? "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."
Click to expand...

Don't know who said that but I have the quotes in my sig properly attributed. If you want a bushell more from the FF along the same lines then I have them.

As far as the candidate in question... R.A.Heinlien said it pretty well:

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't trust Huckabee NOT to push his religion further. Look for it first to start with textbooks showing cavemen riding dinosaurs but religion, given enough power, always tries to take over.

another R.A.H. tidbit:

Any priest or shaman must be presumed guilty until proved innocent.
Click to expand...

Priest should stick to being priests. Politicians should stick to being politicians. One wants to control your public life and the other your private. After all they believe both God or the electorate want them to. The two of them combined into one scares the hell out of me.
 
It's not about religion, it's about a belief system. An atheist like RAH would be no less likely to let his belief system push an agenda. Difference is it would just happen to be one with which you apparently agree.
 
No, the difference is that it would be one based on best observed evidence and theory in keeping with observed phenomena as opposed to blind faith in a book (any book be it Talmud, Koran or Bible) written with no proof whatsoever outside of "faith".

Every person is entitled to their faith. Most people are indoctrinated into one before they can think for themselves although in educated society many leave behind the truly ludicrous portions of that faith and stick to the main stream acceptable ones. Priests, preachers, ministers, shamans, rabbis, witch doctors, imans and others who are sworn to their god of choice to promote and propegate their faith are something else.

Why would a anyone accept that a minister who has sworn to follow his god's words to a degree far greater than 99% of the rest of the public, sworn to bring the light of his faith to others and oppose those who are a danger to it with his own immortal soul (or at least the one he believes in) at stake would really not use the most powerful secular post in the nation, if not the world, to at least indirectly carry out the tenants of his faith?

Sorry, I really despise the Dem contenders but the one thing that would make me vote for one is to put an ordained minister up for the position of POTUS. Put a lousy candidate up like Rudy and I might vote Libertarian first but a minister is just too dangerous. Keep God in the church and out of my government. I don't believe in him and he has no place in the running of my nation. I don't believe he will put his religion firmly in the back seat to running my SECULAR nation because if religion has taught us anything it is that the ends justifies ANY means. The ends has always been the spreading of the faith of choice and opposition of others.
 
Keep God in the church and out of my government. I don't believe in him and he has no place in the running of my nation. I don't believe he will put his religion firmly in the back seat to running my SECULAR nation because if religion has taught us anything it is that the ends justifies ANY means. The ends has always been the spreading of the faith of choice and opposition of others.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and was neither intended to be a Theocracy nor a country devoid of God. The goal of the founding fathers was not to create a religious nation, but to accommodate one. Choosing a secular form of government with religious freedom was the practical way to accomplish this. BTW, having a secular form of government is not the same as being a secular nation.

Probably not the best place to ask since it's off topic; but why is evidence sufficient to support a theory but proof is required to support faith? Is there a difference between being an atheist and an anti-theist? Are atheists' criticisms directed towards the actions of organized religion or the concept of religion itself?

Some of the responses to this post reminded me of a couple of quotes by the suspected atheist Voltaire. "A witty saying proves nothing." and "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."
 
As a Citizen and Right Wing Extremeists of the State of Arkansas, I would like to say that Huckabee was usless as a Governor of our state. He pardoned some dangerous criminals, one of them killed again. He never saw a tax he didn't like. He did nothing for the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top