you stated huckabee killed babies and burned churches because he supported the wars.
The activities are completely different. Huckabee is sanctioning war, saying that if he is made president he will continue it in a directly authoritative role. I have no authoritative role vis a vis abortions.
just making the point - you kill babies by supporting abortions.
Not the case at all. That's like saying you drown people by not draining lakes.
as far as getting laid........man, i'm hoping!
Best be careful. Getting laid almost always carries with it a non-zero chance for abortion and then, by the standard you're pushing here, that would also be "supporting abortion".
The activities are completely different. Huckabee is sanctioning war, saying that if he is made president he will continue it in a directly authoritative role. I have no authoritative role vis a vis abortions.
Not the case at all. That's like saying you drown people by not draining lakes.
Best be careful. Getting laid almost always carries with it a non-zero chance for abortion and then, by the standard you're pushing here, that would also be "supporting abortion".
well, i disagree, but you have figured that out...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
gee roland, that post in the "Z" thread really choked me up...you felt bad for bashing the US and all...i just had to check the date....it seems you got past it
gee roland, that post in the "Z" thread really choked me up...you felt bad for bashing the US and all...i just had to check the date....it seems you got past it
Oh you'd be surprised what I am capable of. hehe
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
nothing wrong with any of that, except for the taxes thing
i was joking about "being a fan of"
Nothing wrong with creationsim if you live in the 18th century. It isn't a matter of belief, the facts are all there. The evangelists just don't want to accept the reality.
Whats really concerning is how apathetic people have become to this type of thing. It is not acceptable for Huckabee to be this ignorant in the 21st century.
Whats really concerning is how apathetic people have become to this type of thing. It is not acceptable for Huckabee to be this ignorant in the 21st century.
Actually, what's really concerning is that people still use the word "unacceptable" relative to other people's beliefs.
I just dont like Huckabee for what he will do to taxes,the flat tax is a scam because you will end up paying taxes on stuff you dont pay taxes on now, like rent...and he has a history of RAISING taxes, not lowering them.
edit: meant "fair tax" or whatever...not flat tax
I don't know where you get your info from but with the Fair Tax you will not have to pay taxes on rent. Also you already pay taxes on everything you buy, it's called an imbedded tax. What ever taxes the manufactorer and/or distributor have to pay in order to get those goods, you purchase, on the shelves are passed on to the consumer.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Actually, what's really concerning is that people still use the word "unacceptable" relative to other people's beliefs.
see, this is where political correctness completely went off the rails. We're supposed to "accept" everybody (even the idiots) and skip off into the sunset singing "Shiny, Happy People."
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
see, this is where political correctness completely went off the rails.
Not really. Where political correctness completely went off the rails is when it became unaccepting in the name of acceptance, intolerant in the name of tolerance, and violent in the name of non-violence.
We're supposed to "accept" everybody (even the idiots) and skip off into the sunset singing "Shiny, Happy People."
Hehe...you can do that if you'd like. However, there's a significant space in between acceptance and unacceptance known as simple indifference. To suggest that someone else's viewpoint is "unacceptable" is to really call into question your own rights to hold your own views.
Not really. Where political correctness completely went off the rails is when it became unaccepting in the name of acceptance, intolerant in the name of tolerance, and violent in the name of non-violence.
Hehe...you can do that if you'd like. However, there's a significant space in between acceptance and unacceptance known as simple indifference. To suggest that someone else's viewpoint is "unacceptable" is to really call into question your own rights to hold your own views.
But the original inference was of what sort of person it is holding public office. I think it is quite acceptable to find candidates unnacceptable for any number of beliefs they may hold. That's part of the process.
Actually, what's really concerning is that people still use the word "unacceptable" relative to other people's beliefs.
You might try putting that to the test of time.
It is not a values system which you can pick and choose, it is a scientific theory supported by evidence so you can't compare it to a belief system. No one would say for example that they 'believe' in Einsten's theory of relativity.
I guess it makes him highly prospective as a leader that he takes faith over reason than?
It is not a values system which you can pick and choose, it is a scientific theory supported by evidence so you can't compare it to a belief system. No one would say for example that they 'believe' in Einsten's theory of relativity.
I guess it makes him highly prospective as a leader that he takes faith over reason than?
what is the proof of either side in dealing with orgins of life? the proof is in the presuppositions you chose to believe. Anyway, how does Huckabees believe about the origin of the world play into his politics and ability to lead? There are other more appropriate leadership philosophies to take him to task on...taxes, consitency etc...
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
haven't read thus, but he'll never win...............
too much religion and shady stuff when he was govenor....
don't believe it....just listen.....he['s shady but he's been ok to attack b/c he's been catholic....and not morman or whatever guliani thi8ng's will get him nominated.
what is the proof of either side in dealing with orgins of life? the proof is in the presuppositions you chose to believe. Anyway, how does Huckabees believe about the origin of the world play into his politics and ability to lead? There are other more appropriate leadership philosophies to take him to task on...taxes, consitency etc...
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, that is your misunderstanding. It explains how life changed once it appeared.
My point was really more general in nature. Will he choose reason over faith in other issues for example? Is he able ot differentaite his won fundametalist values from those of mainstream America?
what is the proof of either side in dealing with orgins of life? the proof is in the presuppositions you chose to believe. Anyway, how does Huckabees believe about the origin of the world play into his politics and ability to lead? There are other more appropriate leadership philosophies to take him to task on...taxes, consitency etc...
seeing as how america is already rapidly losing ground to europe and asia with respect to being competitive in engineering, medicine, math, etc., concern over the kinds of educational reforms he might make is a very wise long-term policy judgment.
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, that is your misunderstanding. It explains how life changed once it appeared.
My point was really more general in nature. Will he choose reason over faith in other issues for example? Is he able ot differentaite his won fundametalist values from those of mainstream America?
yes but you said "creationism" which deals with origins of life and you'll notice i didn't equate origins of life with evolution on purpose. You said that since all the proof is out there to counter creationism i figure you'd be able to show some evidence of origins of life. Evidence of evolutionary changes in docmented.
I don' know if he'll be able to differentiate or not...but really, on some level no one is really objective on every issue, so to ask him to choose reason every time is to ask him to do something that no one else can do either.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
seeing as how america is already rapidly losing ground to europe and asia with respect to being competitive in engineering, medicine, math, etc., concern over the kinds of educational reforms he might make is a very wise long-term policy judgment.
which is true, and if he supports the current standard that's another reason why i'd be more hesitant to vote for him. But again, this is Americas problem with education. We don't have a plan, we only react to where our standing is. Arkansas has had some decent education results with him as governor. I think that his answer to these questions re: evolution is fairly appropriate though...
Q: At a previous debate, you indicated that you do not believe in evolution. What do you believe? Is it the story of creation as it is described in the Bible?
A: It's interesting that that question would even be asked of somebody running for president. I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president. But you've raised the question, so let me answer it. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." To me it's pretty simple, a person either believes that God created this process or believes that it was an accident and that it just happened all on its own.
Q: Do you believe literally it was done in six days and it occurred 6,000 years ago?
A: I believe there is a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how did he do it, and when did he do it, and how long did he take? I don't honestly know, and I don't think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Q: Do you believe literally it was done in six days and it occurred 6,000 years ago?
A: I believe there is a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how did he do it, and when did he do it, and how long did he take? I don't honestly know, and I don't think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president.
Well I am glad you are able to differentaite the two. However he clearly is not and I find it highly troubling that this guy didn't answer no straight out to the above question. How can it not be of importance that Americans elect an educated and learned president?
Well I am glad you are able to differentaite the two. However he clearly is not and I find it highly troubling that this guy didn't answer no straight out to the above question. How can it not be of importance that Americans elect an educated and learned president?
He is educated and learned. To me, the fact that he holds creationist views doesn't mean much when it comes to leading. If he were running for the head of a scientific board, i'd be very skeptical of him...not b/c of his creationist views but because his training isn't in the hard sciences; it's in theology. You do have to give him his credit in helping arkansas raise it's percent of kids who took and passed AP tests and he helped arkansas create a much more rigorous high school curriculum. So it appears that even though he doesn't agree with origins of life and he believes in a literal 7 day creation; he also can put that aside and put programs in place to help students excel..which in my mind is more important. That being said, he's not my top choice.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Comments
Hehe...saddle up, cowboy.
Absolutely, yes.
No. I simply have no interest in telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.
Let me ask you a question: have you ever been laid?
you stated huckabee killed babies and burned churches because he supported the wars.
just making the point - you kill babies by supporting abortions.
as far as getting laid........man, i'm hoping!
The activities are completely different. Huckabee is sanctioning war, saying that if he is made president he will continue it in a directly authoritative role. I have no authoritative role vis a vis abortions.
Not the case at all. That's like saying you drown people by not draining lakes.
Best be careful. Getting laid almost always carries with it a non-zero chance for abortion and then, by the standard you're pushing here, that would also be "supporting abortion".
well, i disagree, but you have figured that out...
i support draining lakes
i only have sex with women who are "fixed"
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
canadians for commies!!!!!!! yippie
At least I'm a smart patriot.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
gee roland, that post in the "Z" thread really choked me up...you felt bad for bashing the US and all...i just had to check the date....it seems you got past it
Oh you'd be surprised what I am capable of. hehe
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Nothing wrong with creationsim if you live in the 18th century. It isn't a matter of belief, the facts are all there. The evangelists just don't want to accept the reality.
Whats really concerning is how apathetic people have become to this type of thing. It is not acceptable for Huckabee to be this ignorant in the 21st century.
Actually, what's really concerning is that people still use the word "unacceptable" relative to other people's beliefs.
You might try putting that to the test of time.
I don't know about that. Most people get past santa claus by age 5. That's 5 years in a human lifetime.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Women who used to be men, eh?
naděje umírá poslední
I don't know where you get your info from but with the Fair Tax you will not have to pay taxes on rent. Also you already pay taxes on everything you buy, it's called an imbedded tax. What ever taxes the manufactorer and/or distributor have to pay in order to get those goods, you purchase, on the shelves are passed on to the consumer.
see, this is where political correctness completely went off the rails. We're supposed to "accept" everybody (even the idiots) and skip off into the sunset singing "Shiny, Happy People."
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
Not really. Where political correctness completely went off the rails is when it became unaccepting in the name of acceptance, intolerant in the name of tolerance, and violent in the name of non-violence.
Hehe...you can do that if you'd like. However, there's a significant space in between acceptance and unacceptance known as simple indifference. To suggest that someone else's viewpoint is "unacceptable" is to really call into question your own rights to hold your own views.
But the original inference was of what sort of person it is holding public office. I think it is quite acceptable to find candidates unnacceptable for any number of beliefs they may hold. That's part of the process.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Maybe...that's not how I read it.
aren't you tolerant of all?
It is not a values system which you can pick and choose, it is a scientific theory supported by evidence so you can't compare it to a belief system. No one would say for example that they 'believe' in Einsten's theory of relativity.
I guess it makes him highly prospective as a leader that he takes faith over reason than?
what is the proof of either side in dealing with orgins of life? the proof is in the presuppositions you chose to believe. Anyway, how does Huckabees believe about the origin of the world play into his politics and ability to lead? There are other more appropriate leadership philosophies to take him to task on...taxes, consitency etc...
too much religion and shady stuff when he was govenor....
don't believe it....just listen.....he['s shady but he's been ok to attack b/c he's been catholic....and not morman or whatever guliani thi8ng's will get him nominated.
long live gore.
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, that is your misunderstanding. It explains how life changed once it appeared.
My point was really more general in nature. Will he choose reason over faith in other issues for example? Is he able ot differentaite his won fundametalist values from those of mainstream America?
seeing as how america is already rapidly losing ground to europe and asia with respect to being competitive in engineering, medicine, math, etc., concern over the kinds of educational reforms he might make is a very wise long-term policy judgment.
yes but you said "creationism" which deals with origins of life and you'll notice i didn't equate origins of life with evolution on purpose. You said that since all the proof is out there to counter creationism i figure you'd be able to show some evidence of origins of life. Evidence of evolutionary changes in docmented.
I don' know if he'll be able to differentiate or not...but really, on some level no one is really objective on every issue, so to ask him to choose reason every time is to ask him to do something that no one else can do either.
which is true, and if he supports the current standard that's another reason why i'd be more hesitant to vote for him. But again, this is Americas problem with education. We don't have a plan, we only react to where our standing is. Arkansas has had some decent education results with him as governor. I think that his answer to these questions re: evolution is fairly appropriate though...
Q: At a previous debate, you indicated that you do not believe in evolution. What do you believe? Is it the story of creation as it is described in the Bible?
A: It's interesting that that question would even be asked of somebody running for president. I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president. But you've raised the question, so let me answer it. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." To me it's pretty simple, a person either believes that God created this process or believes that it was an accident and that it just happened all on its own.
Q: Do you believe literally it was done in six days and it occurred 6,000 years ago?
A: I believe there is a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how did he do it, and when did he do it, and how long did he take? I don't honestly know, and I don't think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_75362.html
Well I am glad you are able to differentaite the two. However he clearly is not and I find it highly troubling that this guy didn't answer no straight out to the above question. How can it not be of importance that Americans elect an educated and learned president?
He is educated and learned. To me, the fact that he holds creationist views doesn't mean much when it comes to leading. If he were running for the head of a scientific board, i'd be very skeptical of him...not b/c of his creationist views but because his training isn't in the hard sciences; it's in theology. You do have to give him his credit in helping arkansas raise it's percent of kids who took and passed AP tests and he helped arkansas create a much more rigorous high school curriculum. So it appears that even though he doesn't agree with origins of life and he believes in a literal 7 day creation; he also can put that aside and put programs in place to help students excel..which in my mind is more important. That being said, he's not my top choice.
hey inmytree - better research a little more - your boy billy clinton had the biggest role in that...huffington is left wing bullshit