• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Huckabee for President?

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

We are once again left with choosing between the lesser of evils. I also am not a single issue voter, although 2nd Amendment issues are near the top for me along with illegal immigration (close the damn border and force self-deportation which McCain and Huckabee won't do), increased domestic production of oil and natural gas especially opening drilling in ANWR and the eastern Gulf (which McCain continuously votes against), reduced taxes (industry will continue to flee unless tax rates are reduced), building new oil refineries (we are now importing gasoline because we don't have enough domestic capacity to meet demands), recognizing that mand-made global climate change is a fallacy, reducing the federal government's meddling in daily lives including health care (many small businesses can't afford to provide health insurance because of nonsensical gov't required coverages that increase the cost - nearly 30% of my businesses' health insurance costs are for coverages my employees and I do not want or do not need, but are gov't mandated in some manner), and a reduction in welfare and social services. Do all those things and most of our foreign policy problems evaporate as do our economic problems. Unfortunately, no current candidate is going to do those things. Mitt comes the closest except on 2nd Amendment issues. Huckabee is not even close on any of those except 2nd Amendment issues, on which he has been consistently fairly strong. Fred was actually almost point on for everyone of those issues, but no use crying over spilled milk.
 

TheEggman

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
174
Location
, Virginia, USA
imported post

Again, we appear to be left with no one to vote FOR.
Reagan was the last candidate I could get behind to vote FOR. All the other votes were votes AGAINST the other guy.
It seems to boil down to a choice between a needle in the eye or splinters under the nails.
Regardless of the wants and needs of the 'people,' it's the self-perpetuating, self-protecting 'SYSTEM' that's now in control of both parties.
The individual POTUS is merely a representative from the system, providing (and not so successfully) a 'human' element to the process. Mr. Smith goes to Washington was fiction.
"I will change the system" is, if not an outright lie, is at least a display of extreme naivety.
 

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

I left Arkansas February 21, 2001. I've scarcely missed the place.

Huckabee was a RINO, and could be considered *shudder* Governor Clinton 2.0.

I'll vote for myself before I'll vote for him. :X
 

riegnman

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
73
Location
Hiltons, Virginia, USA
imported post

AbNo wrote:
I left Arkansas February 21, 2001. I've scarcely missed the place.

Huckabee was a RINO, and could be considered *shudder* Governor Clinton 2.0.

I'll vote for myself before I'll vote for him. :X

For those of you who don't know

R- Republican

I- in

N- name

O- only

If you don't mind, could you give examples of what democratic philosophies he espouses? According to his website, and we all know that you can't lie on a website, he seems to hold mostly Republican beliefs.

Keep in mind I'm not doubting you, I just want to be informed when I go to the polls. Thanks.
 

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

Huckabee has been discussed elsewhere, but summing him up, he's great on the 2nd Amendment and completely liberal on spending policy. He raised taxes in Arkansas, raised spending a lot and increased state control over local schools. He supports a federal smoking ban in public places and supports the federal power grab of "no child left behind." That's just a quick intro off the top of my head.

There's only one conservative left in this race: Ron Paul
 

Saint

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
293
Location
Kaneohe Bay, HI USA
imported post

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is aboslutely unequivocal on his 2nd ammendemnt stance. He has stated time and again that he wants there to be no gun control and for the government to gets its hands off our weapons. Ron Paul 2008!
 

FightingGlock19

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
583
Location
, Kentucky, USA
imported post

ama-gi wrote:
There's only one conservative left in this race: Ron Paul

but Paul's for signing international treaties that could limit our economic growth, he supports same sex marriages (or at least the protection of such), embryonic stem cell reaserch is okay in his book, he's against a federal death penalty, and for legalization of illegal drugs.

A better lable for Paul would be a progressive social liberal.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

FightingGlock19 wrote:
ama-gi wrote:
There's only one conservative left in this race: Ron Paul

but Paul's for signing international treaties that could limit our economic growth, he supports same sex marriages (or at least the protection of such), embryonic stem cell reaserch is okay in his book, he's against a federal death penalty, and for legalization of illegal drugs.

A better lable for Paul would be a progressive social liberal.

No, there's nothing "liberal" about what he stands for. Mostly, he's not FOR or AGAINST anything you've brought up. He simply states that the federal government has NO BUSINESS regulating or sticking their nose into matters such as this, and that to do so would be overstepping the authority and mission of the federal government, as the Constitution and other such authoritative documents spell out.

The federal government we have today would cause the founding fathers to spin in their graves, getting into everyone's business. The job of the federal government is to protect us from invasion, make sure our rights are not infringed, and to stay the hell out of our business and let us live as free men. That's ALL. If that's a "liberal" viewpoint, then I guess I'm real damn confused now.....
 

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
imported post

Here's how it works for me:

Best case scenario: Ron Paul wins
I'll be ok as long as I don't get drafted: Huckabee wins
Damnit!: McCain wins
Armedresistance: Romney, Clinton or Obama win.
 

FightingGlock19

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
583
Location
, Kentucky, USA
imported post

compmanio365 wrote:
FightingGlock19 wrote:
ama-gi wrote:
There's only one conservative left in this race: Ron Paul

but Paul's for signing international treaties that could limit our economic growth, he supports same sex marriages (or at least the protection of such), embryonic stem cell reaserch is okay in his book, he's against a federal death penalty, and for legalization of illegal drugs.

A better lable for Paul would be a progressive social liberal.

No, there's nothing "liberal" about what he stands for. Mostly, he's not FOR or AGAINST anything you've brought up. He simply states that the federal government has NO BUSINESS regulating or sticking their nose into matters such as this, and that to do so would be overstepping the authority and mission of the federal government, as the Constitution and other such authoritative documents spell out.

The federal government we have today would cause the founding fathers to spin in their graves, getting into everyone's business. The job of the federal government is to protect us from invasion, make sure our rights are not infringed, and to stay the hell out of our business and let us live as free men. That's ALL. If that's a "liberal" viewpoint, then I guess I'm real damn confused now.....

the last "true" conservitive was Reagan.

Paul's rhetoric is far from that of a conservative based on the definition and more closely resembles a progressive social liberal.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Reagan talked like Ron Paul in the 1960s when he supported Goldwater, which made him popular with "real conservatives". But after he became president he settled in with the establishment comfortably, and Goldwater's true conservatism is now considered "radical" by people who are afraid of actually obeying the constitution. The left has accomplished its task of making us fear our own freedom. Not going to war, shrinking and eliminating government programs, eliminating gun control and the IRS, most "conservatives" are afriad of these ideas. We have to stay paranoid of terrorists, and can't live without our government security blanket.

It seems like we're all left-liberals, now. We deserve Hillary (or McRomnuckabama, which is about the same thing without a dress).
 

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

FightingGlock19 wrote:
ama-gi wrote:
There's only one conservative left in this race: Ron Paul

but Paul's for signing international treaties that could limit our economic growth, he supports same sex marriages (or at least the protection of such), embryonic stem cell reaserch is okay in his book, he's against a federal death penalty, and for legalization of illegal drugs.

A better lable for Paul would be a progressive social liberal.

People who make comments like this obviously have no understanding of the Constitution, and I doubt they've even read it.

but Paul's for signing international treaties that could limit our economic growth

First, Paul is against NAFTA and CAFTA and GATT as he sees them as harming our national sovereignty, so I have no idea what you're talking about there (this is actually one of the few areas with which I disagree with him). Please show me another Republican candidate with the same position.

he supports same sex marriages

WRONG! Once again, small minded people can't see the difference between "I support X" and "It's not the government's job to regulate X." Ron Paul is against the federal government forcing the states to enact policies relating to marriage. If you disagree, please cite the portion of Article I, Section 8 (the enumerated power section) of the Constitution that authorizes federal action in this area.
embryonic stem cell reaserch is okay in his book


WRONG! First, he's voted against funding it at the federal level (no authorization to spend money on this). I don't know if he's against a federal ban or not, but if he is, it would be the same as the reason for gay marriage above. I do know that he's introduced legislation to remove abortion cases from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (effectively overturning Roe v. Wade by act of Congress...not to many of his "pro-life" fellows voted for it though).
he's against a federal death penalty

This is one of the places with which I disagree with Paul.
and for legalization of illegal drugs.

Which section of the Constitution authorizes federal action on drugs?! At least our ancestors were honest enough to know they had to pass a Constitutional amendment to enact Prohibition part 1. Don't even try to come back and say that the massive federal bureacracy that wastes tons of money fighting against plants is somehow "small government" conservatism. It's big government liberalism and it's unconstitutional. If you want to regulate businesses, do it at the state level.



Pat Buchanan's magazine just endorsed Ron Paul
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

ama-gi wrote:
FightingGlock19 wrote:
the last "true" conservitive was Reagan.

If you listen to Reagan's famous speeches back in the 1960's........

I saw and heard Regan speak when he was Governor of California, at the Anaheim Convention Center,in 1969.

Tarzan
 

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

ama-gi wrote:
Huckabee has been discussed elsewhere, but summing him up, he's great on the 2nd Amendment and completely liberal on spending policy.  He raised taxes in Arkansas, raised spending a lot and increased state control over local schools.  He supports a federal smoking ban in public places and supports the federal power grab of "no child left behind."  That's just a quick intro off the top of my head.

I think Ama-Gi summed it up pretty well.

Great tax raises, s:cuss:ty roads, amnesty.... I can't stand the guy.

Oh, and smoking bans. You know, instead of letting businesses decide what they want.
 
Top