This is the George W. Bush/Karl Rove campaign strategy. Latch on to the 25% who will stick with you, no matter what. Promise to change this nation into a Christian guided (moral) nation and you get the same 25% that approve of George W. Bush (no matter what facts say).
Then, all you have to do is split the remaining 75% in half. And you know that there will be people who will vote for you based simply on the fact that they hate Hillary so much... or they still don't think we are ready for a black president. Half of 75%... 37.5%... plus your hardcore Christian 25%... 52.5% of the vote. I smell presidency.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
This is the George W. Bush/Karl Rove campaign strategy. Latch on to the 25% who will stick with you, no matter what. Promise to change this nation into a Christian guided (moral) nation and you get the same 25% that approve of George W. Bush (no matter what facts say).
Then, all you have to do is split the remaining 75% in half. And you know that there will be people who will vote for you based simply on the fact that they hate Hillary so much... or they still don't think we are ready for a black president. Half of 75%... 37.5%... plus your hardcore Christian 25%... 52.5% of the vote. I smell presidency.
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.
The fact that he equates consenting adults with children and animals is disgusting. Can we honestly say two men getting married is the same as raping a child. (Since marriage usually leads to consummation.) or screwing a horse? Really? Because i find pedophilia disgusting.
I don't think anyone can go up to two gay men and say, "see this child? what you are do is as bad as raping him." And that's essentially what he's equating here. I don't think anyone can honestly the two things are the same.
Do you think that on issues other than marriage and the life of the unborn that the Constitution should be brought into conformity with the Bible, which is what that quote seemed to suggest?
No, I was specifically talking about those two issues. Those were the only two issues I spoke about in the speech, and that was the point. I’m not suggesting that we say, “Okay, the Bible says you should tithe, so now in the Constitution we’re going to amend it to say everyone tithes.”
Those were the two issues that I felt like are talked about in the political realm. I support both the human rights amendment and a marriage amendment, and the reason that I do is because I think we need to codify in our Constitution that which has been acceptable and accepted view of what life and what marriage means. Frankly, if it weren’t being challenged, it wouldn’t be necessary. But it is being challenged. Now you have states that are passing same-sex marriage laws or civil union laws.
It sounds like he's another pro-big-government republican.
And you also have states that not only practice abortion, but if Roe v. Wade is overturned, we haven’t won the battle. All we’ve done is now we’ve created the logic of the Civil War, which says that the right to the human life is geographical, not moral. I think that’s very problematic. That’s why I think that people like Fred Thompson are dead wrong when he says just leave that up to the states. Well, that’s again the logic of the Civil War – that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we’d today say, “Well, that’s nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period.” It can’t be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else. Same with abortion.
Is the president going to open an orphanage for all of the unwanted children that he's forcing into existence? I'm not saying "yay abortions! let's all get one!" but as long as there aren't other, better options, it's not for me to say whether or not someone should do one thing or another. Laws are meant to protect us, not impose other's wills on us. Maybe i'm wrong?
As open minded as everyone seems to be on this thread, I figure that they are still open to listening opinions drastically different from the opposition.
9 Billion a month on the war and you think America needs another republican president for 'economic reasons'. WTF?
The economic health of the country has nothing to do with the war.
The current economic debacle can be attributed to the housing bubble and poor mortgage lending standards. These issues have put the economy in a position where the necessary actions politically to stimulate an economy will most likely come from a Republican. Tax increases and universal health care are not the types of items that are exactly the measures that should be taken when the economy is slowing. Stimulus from the government, i.e. tax cuts for corporations to bolster economic growth and create jobs, are items that Republicans can offer a struggling economy.
When a sperm enters an egg it does not a human make...and to thing at that instance the couple cells is a full fledged soul with rights is utterly ridiculous....
The economic health of the country has nothing to do with the war.
The current economic debacle can be attributed to the housing bubble and poor mortgage lending standards. These issues have put the economy in a position where the necessary actions politically to stimulate an economy will most likely come from a Republican. Tax increases and universal health care are not the types of items that are exactly the measures that should be taken when the economy is slowing. Stimulus from the government, i.e. tax cuts for corporations to bolster economic growth and create jobs, are items that Republicans can offer a struggling economy.
I agree, the war is not a determining factor by itself. However it is a massive and unnesccesary drain on the economy. So what in your view were the republicans doing for the past 7 years?
The economic health of the country has nothing to do with the war.
The current economic debacle can be attributed to the housing bubble and poor mortgage lending standards. These issues have put the economy in a position where the necessary actions politically to stimulate an economy will most likely come from a Republican. Tax increases and universal health care are not the types of items that are exactly the measures that should be taken when the economy is slowing. Stimulus from the government, i.e. tax cuts for corporations to bolster economic growth and create jobs, are items that Republicans can offer a struggling economy.
the trickle down theory. Give those who have more as it is- tax breaks in the hopes that they decide to throw the middle class a bone every now and then. Flawed logic, that sometimes works.
Tough call on abortion for me...still on the fence about that one. I say if they do an MRI on one of those fetuses and find brain activity, then that's something to consider.
I agree, the war is not a determining factor by itself. However it is a massive and unnesccesary drain on the economy. So what in your view were the republicans doing for the past 7 years?
The war isn't a drain on the economy, just a debt to the federal government.
The billions that are spent are spent on to support the effort provide jobs and is actually a stimulus to the economy.
The economic struggles as of later are a result of falling real estate values and poor lending practices that have have their own trickle down effect (negatively) on our economy.
the trickle down theory. Give those who have more as it is- tax breaks in the hopes that they decide to throw the middle class a bone every now and then. Flawed logic, that sometimes works.
Not flawed in my opinion, it provides opportunity for growth.
Politicans that push for tax increases in times like these will only push the economy farther into the economic abyss.
Not flawed in my opinion, it provides opportunity for growth.
Politicans that push for tax increases in times like these will only push the economy farther into the economic abyss.
Why do you believe that it is flawed?
Your're giving tax dollars-most of which were provided by the working class-to those who are already wealthy.
It's the working class that needs the bailout. A CEO can afford to heat his house...some of us in the working class can't...I think it was 3 degrees F last night here. That's a problem when we can't even afford the basics.
Give the tax breaks or rebates or checks to the working class, the people who need it, rather than hope some CEO is gonna decide to open up some factory and provide jobs. Chances are he'll outsource anyway.
trickle down theory is like a huge banquest feast for the burgeois, while the working class beg at the table for a bone to be thrown their way every once in a while.
The proletariat have every right-more so- to eat at that table. They built this county and keep it running. Without us there is no America.
Comments
Then, all you have to do is split the remaining 75% in half. And you know that there will be people who will vote for you based simply on the fact that they hate Hillary so much... or they still don't think we are ready for a black president. Half of 75%... 37.5%... plus your hardcore Christian 25%... 52.5% of the vote. I smell presidency.
Hail, Hail!!!
I hope you're wrong.
naděje umírá poslední
Here's to fundamentalism!
Yay for uber-conservatism!
Care to share the specifics as to why?
Seriously, I've not met one person that supports him and I'm intrigued what would possess a person to vote for this guy.
I was going to ask the same question.
naděje umírá poslední
It's 1000x worse than slavery.
6/30/98 Minneapolis, 10/8/00 East Troy (Brrrr!), 6/16/03 St. Paul, 6/27/06 St. Paul
Don't abort then, make turn those babies into slaves! That way, everyone is happy.
naděje umírá poslední
Because he has a funny name. The only name better would be President Dingalingadoo.
Hail, Hail!!!
I'd vote for that guy! President Donny Dingalingadoo.
naděje umírá poslední
Let's just say that I share similar fundamental beliefs with Huckabee.
I am not a progressive individual when it comes to social issues.
I also like his views on immigration and health care. I think we need a Republican in office for economic reasons as well.
Like I said, I am pretty much contrary to the rest of the thread
you are.
And you are brave for replying.
9 Billion a month on the war and you think America needs another republican president for 'economic reasons'. WTF?
you're are incorrect sir.
No.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
As open minded as everyone seems to be on this thread, I figure that they are still open to listening opinions drastically different from the opposition.
I am for sure in the minority here
The economic health of the country has nothing to do with the war.
The current economic debacle can be attributed to the housing bubble and poor mortgage lending standards. These issues have put the economy in a position where the necessary actions politically to stimulate an economy will most likely come from a Republican. Tax increases and universal health care are not the types of items that are exactly the measures that should be taken when the economy is slowing. Stimulus from the government, i.e. tax cuts for corporations to bolster economic growth and create jobs, are items that Republicans can offer a struggling economy.
...because you know?
I agree, the war is not a determining factor by itself. However it is a massive and unnesccesary drain on the economy. So what in your view were the republicans doing for the past 7 years?
You can't draw a line in the sand and say that "now it's human". 'Pro-lifers' need to understand the world isn't black and white.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
The war isn't a drain on the economy, just a debt to the federal government.
The billions that are spent are spent on to support the effort provide jobs and is actually a stimulus to the economy.
The economic struggles as of later are a result of falling real estate values and poor lending practices that have have their own trickle down effect (negatively) on our economy.
Not flawed in my opinion, it provides opportunity for growth.
Politicans that push for tax increases in times like these will only push the economy farther into the economic abyss.
Why do you believe that it is flawed?
that would be a very, very sad state of affairs.
It's the working class that needs the bailout. A CEO can afford to heat his house...some of us in the working class can't...I think it was 3 degrees F last night here. That's a problem when we can't even afford the basics.
Give the tax breaks or rebates or checks to the working class, the people who need it, rather than hope some CEO is gonna decide to open up some factory and provide jobs. Chances are he'll outsource anyway.
trickle down theory is like a huge banquest feast for the burgeois, while the working class beg at the table for a bone to be thrown their way every once in a while.
The proletariat have every right-more so- to eat at that table. They built this county and keep it running. Without us there is no America.