• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Huckabee Opts Against 2012 White House Bid

xpiher said:
I tried telling this to a tea party activist and simply said "no no no." It amazing how entrenched the social right is with the tea party and repubs.
Click to expand...

well, there is alot of overlap. Most Tea Partiers are social conservatives as well - that's just not their organizing drive.
 
cpwill said:
well, there is alot of overlap. Most Tea Partiers are social conservatives as well - that's just not their organizing drive.
Click to expand...

The overlap is a false one. You can't be for small government and at the same time support banning of gay marriage.
 
Councilman said:
Mike Huckabee will not run for president, and as a former candidate for public office I fully understand what he is doing. He feels he has a better chance to make a difference doing what he is dong.
Click to expand...

Playing bass? Or far-right punditry.
 
xpiher said:
The overlap is a false one. You can't be for small government and at the same time support banning of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

sure you can. it's worthy of it's own thread - but remember that defining marriage is a function of any government that is in the business of issuing marriage licenses. Those who wish to make the rules more blatantly specific are restricting the actions of government officials, not citizens.

If folks were arguing that there should be some kind of "gay laws" or "gay police" that went around and made sure that homosexuals didnt live together, love each other, etc; then you would be correct. but holding to a particular definition of marriage does not negate a desire to see a smaller federal government.
 
cpwill said:
If folks were arguing that there should be some kind of "gay laws" or "gay police" that went around and made sure that homosexuals didnt live together, love each other, etc; then you would be correct. but holding to a particular definition of marriage does not negate a desire to see a smaller federal government.
Click to expand...

With the gov involved, there should be equal protection under the law. Advocating the special privileges of marriage should only be held by heterosexuals is support big gov involvement in individuals lives.
 
involvement in their lives? it interferes with their lives not at all. they are free to live, love, and grow old together - to get all manner of legal agreements that match perfectly the "priviledges" of marriage with the one exception that they don't get hit with a tax penalty. They are free to have ceremonies, tell people that they are married... in no way whatsoever is their action or their speech hampered. the only thing that is limited is the actions of the government official - who is tied to the will of the state populace.

but no. no no no no no. take this down to the sexuality forum where all they talk about endlessly is this One Stupid Debate. If you want to talk about whether the Federal government should be imposing a definition on the States, then that is a Big/Small Government debate and I'm fine with it. But if you want to pick up that endless go-round of any government choosing to define marriage in a way that you don't agree with, then get thee to the forum where it belongs.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
involvement in their lives? it interferes with their lives not at all. they are free to live, love, and grow old together - to get all manner of legal agreements that match perfectly the "priviledges" of marriage with the one exception that they don't get hit with a tax penalty. They are free to have ceremonies, tell people that they are married... in no way whatsoever is their action or their speech hampered. the only thing that is limited is the actions of the government official - who is tied to the will of the state populace.

but no. no no no no no. take this down to the sexuality forum where all they talk about endlessly is this One Stupid Debate. If you want to talk about whether the Federal government should be imposing a definition on the States, then that is a Big/Small Government debate and I'm fine with it. But if you want to pick up that endless go-round of any government choosing to define marriage in a way that you don't agree with, then get thee to the forum where it belongs.
Click to expand...

A special privilege is a special privilege. I personally would be OK with either the federal government getting rid of the marriage tax break, or recognize civil unions/common law marriages which would count homosexual couples.
 
then you are simply insisting that for smaller government to be smaller government at all, it must also provide you with this particular addition. that seems a bit extreme.
 
cpwill said:
then you are simply insisting that for smaller government to be smaller government at all, it must also provide you with this particular addition. that seems a bit extreme.
Click to expand...

No, its called equal application of the law.
 
xpiher said:
The overlap is a false one. You can't be for small government and at the same time support banning of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Conservatism is not a monolithic political philosophy, but the broad principles - smaller, less intrusive government, emphasis on personal responsibility, adherence to existing constitutional principles - are things all conservatives will agree on. Not all conservatives will have a conservative take on every single issue
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I expect the majority of people running for presidente of the US of A is going to be a bit narcissistic


Or delusional, but as Obama won the election lets go with narcissistic.

You dont stand up in front of hundreds of millions of people and proclaim I want to be your leader if you think you are not better then the nearly everybody. Considering it is one of the most difficult jobs to get in the world.
Click to expand...

To be president you don't need to think you are better than everybody else. It could be you are just confident in your ability to do a better job for your country than anyone else running. I want someone confident, not arrogant, for a leader.
I don't think you need to be an arrogant ass and think you're all that, to be president. In fact I think that's a hindrance. Obama thinks he is so special he deserves to have has much leisure time as he wants and acts like being president is just burden. He like all the perks, like Air Force One and all the entertaining in the White House. I don't know how he ever found the time to do something right. I'll give him some credit for helping get Bin Laden. Of course, if he wasn't such a narcissist, he wouldn't have taken any of the credit. :)
 
pbrauer said:
I think you should ask some strangers if they've ever heard of Herman Cain. I would bet that somewhere between 80-90% of the voting public have never heard of him at this point.
Click to expand...

You're right. That's why it's good he got in early. The majority of people who hear him, like what they hear. That's why his numbers are going up ever so slowly. He's been traveling around a lot and giving speechs, but not to huge crowds. He needs to get some serious air time, but it seems as long as his numbers are low, he'll be ignored. Although, he is going to be on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, next week. That should be a good interview. Wallace is tough, and won't throw him softballs. Hopefully, that will give him a bump.
He won me over in 2009 with one speech. Then the more I learned, the more I liked.
He can beat Obama.
 
BDBoop said:
Okay, I held off as long as I could.

It would appear that you believe that the President suffers from a mental illness. Correct?
Click to expand...

I do, and always have. No one can be that arrogant and not have a mental illness of some kind.
I bolded everything that screams Obama! to me.

Narcissistic personality disorder: Symptoms - MayoClinic.com

Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence or strong self-esteem, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence and self-esteem into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal. In contrast, people who have healthy confidence and self-esteem don't value themselves more than they value others. When you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may have a sense of entitlement. And when you don't receive the special treatment to which you feel entitled, you may become very impatient or angry. You may insist on having "the best" of everything — the best car, athletic club, medical care or social circles, for instance. But underneath all this behavior often lies a fragile self-esteem. You have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have a sense of secret shame and humiliation. And in order to make yourself feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to belittle the other person to make yourself appear better.
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
True. But that's a description of the job, not the man. Obama is also "the decider" (at least, when he finally gets around to it) - it's why he deserves the credit he does for the OBL raid. However, Bush also never claimed that his mere nomination was enough to cause the oceans to cease their rise.
Click to expand...
Check out about 10 seconds in. :roll: Don't know where it fits on the list but what is he thinking? That people need his permission to get comfortable?



[video]http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=BarackObamadotcom[/video]
 
xpiher said:
No, its called equal application of the law.
Click to expand...

:roll: fine. if you want to be silly, two can play.

Anyone who calls for the imposition of a national standard on the states forcing them to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships is thereby pushing the Federal Government into one of the few areas still traditionally left up to the states. they thus have no right to call themselves libertarians because any other opinion about politics, economics, proper governance, or the interaction of individuals in society is all mooted by that one - stupid - issue.
 
ludahai said:
Do you think evangelicals would vote for a Roman Catholic?
Click to expand...

I don't think voters care all that much about what religion someone is, although the media tries to make a stink about Romney being a Mormon.
 
Barbbtx said:
Check out about 10 seconds in. :roll: Don't know where it fits on the list but what is he thinking? That people need his permission to get comfortable?



[video]http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=BarackObamadotcom[/video]
Click to expand...

i thought you meant 10 minutes and went there. Actually I have to give him credit for hitting some pretty good notes there, and some unusual honesty from his side on this issue.
 
Barbbtx said:
I don't think voters care all that much about what religion someone is, although the media tries to make a stink about Romney being a Mormon.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree. If people didn't care about religion, why do people make a big deal about whether the President is Mulsim. And there are plenty of the religious right who won't vote for a Mormon because of his religion.
 
Barbbtx said:
I don't think voters care all that much about what religion someone is, although the media tries to make a stink about Romney being a Mormon.
Click to expand...

mormonism might get a few people more twitchy than Catholicism - but I think within general Christianity just honest devotion is all the Social Conservatives are really looking for.
 
cpwill said:
i thought you meant 10 minutes and went there. Actually I have to give him credit for hitting some pretty good notes there, and some unusual honesty from his side on this issue.
Click to expand...

Ummm... I didn't watch the whole thing. However have heard sound bites where he pissed a lot of people off by making fun of those who want the border secure. Alligators in moats etc. and lying about how everything had been done to secure the border as promised. Some Texans not too pleased with that speech.
 
soccerboy22 said:
Completely disagree. If people didn't care about religion, why do people make a big deal about whether the President is Mulsim. And there are plenty of the religious right who won't vote for a Mormon because of his religion.
Click to expand...

Because if it turned out he was a Muslim, then he would be a liar?
 
Barbbtx said:
Because if it turned out he was a Muslim, then he would be a liar?
Click to expand...

But he said he was Christian, so why bother questioning it anymore if religion doesn't matter to the voters? Because it does matter. Plus it was just another thing to pile on Obama about.
 
Barbbtx said:
I don't think voters care all that much about what religion someone is, although the media tries to make a stink about Romney being a Mormon.
Click to expand...

You cannot be serious? We have saw what the haters have tried to do to Obama over religion:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom