In Iowa, Huckabee has message for those focused only on 'liberty' and low taxes

[jct74]

In Iowa, Huckabee has message for those focused only on 'liberty' and low taxes
He tells The Des Moines Register in exclusive interview at private event that his 'liberty' comments weren't a dig at Rand Paul

Jennifer Jacobs
August 8, 2014

CEDAR RAPIDS, Ia. – Mike Huckabee says he finds it interesting when well-meaning conservatives say they don't want the GOP to talk about moral issues.

"They say, "I don't want to hear about social issues. All I want to hear is about liberty and low taxes. Well that's just delicious. Let me tell you something," said Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor. "... Liberty cannot function unless there are people who are willing to live with integrity."

Huckabee, who is "very seriously" considering running for president again, is in Iowa today on the heels of liberty movement conservative Rand Paul, a U.S. senator from Kentucky who is the frontrunner of the field of GOP potential 2016 presidential candidates, national polling shows.

After Paul spent three hectic days in Iowa meeting with every faction of the GOP, Huckabee flew in to give a speech to Christian conservative pastors and community leaders at an Iowa Renewal Project event in Cedar Rapids. It's Huckabee who's the Republican frontrunner in Iowa, riding on popularity he built in 2008 when he won the GOP caucuses here.

Asked if his "liberty" remarks were directed at the liberty movement that sprang from 2012 presidential candidate Ron Paul's campaign, and the activists who are now rallying around his son, Rand Paul, Huckabee told The Des Moines Register: "No, not at all, it's just the bigger picture. ... It's a word I would use regularly anyway."

...

read more:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/08/08/mike-huckabee/13771421/

[dillo]

Clearly only fundamental Christians can have liberty

[philipped]

Tell that man i'll put up my set and shoot him the one on sight if he thinks he really isn't gonna loose by less than 10% in a hypothetical match-up with Clinton or anyone from the Dems LMAO.

[CaptUSA]

I think he was trying to say...

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/John-Adams-Quote-Religion-and-Morality.jpg

[LibertyEagle]

Problem is, Huckabee doesn't offer either; integrity nor liberty.

[Brett85]

Huckabee is going to be really tough to beat in Iowa if he decides to run.

[Crashland]

I think he was trying to say...

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/John-Adams-Quote-Religion-and-Morality.jpg

Yes, it's Religion and Morality ALONE! Because we all know it is impossible for two people to hold the same principle for different reasons. If you don't hold this principle for *my* reasons, then you can't hold this principle.

[TheTexan]

He loves liberty and freedom. Everyone everywhere just fucking loves liberty and freedom. Empty fucking words if there ever were any.

[jjdoyle]

Huckabee is going to be really tough to beat in Iowa if he decides to run.

There needs to be a path, and if Huckabee runs that takes out most of the southern states. So, what is that path?
New Hampshire, then...? Maine?

For starters, Huckabee would probably win Iowa, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kansas, and Louisiana.

We have New Hampshire, then? There needs to be a plan with a path, before just jumping in with no plan.
It may change depending on WHO runs, like if Chris Christie runs certain norther states may be taken out, but there still needs to be a solid plan/path in place. I'm only seeing one state right now that is up for grabs if Huckabee runs.

[CaptUSA]

Yes, it's Religion and Morality ALONE! Because we all know it is impossible for two people to hold the same principle for different reasons. If you don't hold this principle for *my* reasons, then you can't hold this principle.

Um, what? Two people can have the same moral principles for different reasons. That's what Adams was saying. Liberty needs morality to survive. Whether you get that from religion or some other means. Huckabee may see religion as the only means, but we know better. I think he was trying to put this sentiment into his own words. I disagree with him on many things, but this is not one of them.

[Brett85]

There needs to be a path, and if Huckabee runs that takes out most of the southern states. So, what is that path?
New Hampshire, then...? Maine?

For starters, Huckabee would probably win Iowa, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kansas, and Louisiana.

We have New Hampshire, then? There needs to be a plan with a path, before just jumping in with no plan.
It may change depending on WHO runs, like if Chris Christie runs certain norther states may be taken out, but there still needs to be a solid plan/path in place. I'm only seeing one state right now that is up for grabs if Huckabee runs.

Yeah, I just hope that he decides that he's already making a lot of money at Fox and decides not to run.

[Christian Liberty]

Clearly only fundamental Christians can have liberty

Well, I'm arguably a fundamentalist, but I don't have a huge problem with what he actually said. I do have a problem with what I think are very likely the intended implications of what he said.

There's no doubt in my mind that there's some measure of integrity that is going to be necessary for liberty to flourish. And, while I completely agree with the NAP as a legal principle and as a moral principle, I don't think JUST the NAP is enough in the integrity department. In other words, if people totally lack integrity except for the fact that they don't steal or kill or engage in other explicit NAP violations, I'm not sure that society would last either.

But, for someone like Huckabee, "integrity" probably means government control of what you do in the bedroom, government control of what substances you use, and government imposed "integrity" in other parts of the world because "America needs to set an example" by bombing the crap out of people who don't do what we say.

And THAT is something this evangelical Christian isn't interested in. I'm proud of those of my brothers and sisters in Christ who also want nothing to do with it.

I won't be voting for Huckabee.

[Peace&Freedom]

We could shave some votes off the Huck train if the pro-liberty side did not appear to be stone-faced aloof, or outright hostile to moral issues. Just because we want to avoid getting sidetracked by wedge issues, doesn't mean there is NO connection between moral decline and the loss of liberty. A culture that allows the legal slaughter of the unborn, for example, shouldn't be surprised that not long after, it sees its government allow torture, rendition, no-due-process detention, and drone assassinations of civilians as well.

While Huckabee doesn't acknowledge these connections, he does bring up the relevance morality has as a partial explanation to our general blight. The voting bloc he culls by doing so can also be mined by Rand and the movement, but we need to lose the wholesale contemptuous attitude towards those voters in order to win over a faction of them.

[Christian Liberty]

Um, what? Two people can have the same moral principles for different reasons. That's what Adams was saying. Liberty needs morality to survive. Whether you get that from religion or some other means. Huckabee may see religion as the only means, but we know better. I think he was trying to put this sentiment into his own words. I disagree with him on many things, but this is not one of them.

Well, I won't say its the ONLY way, but I do think a Christianized society that has a high regard for the Bible is the best way for liberty. The problem is that modern Christianity has fallen for the whole "God and Country" nonsense, which often makes country INTO a God, and it has utterly failed to hold its leaders accountable.

In 1 Kings 21 we see the story of Naboth. You can look it up on your own if desired, but basically, King Ahad (a wicked king) asked Naboth to sell him his vineyard, and Naboth refused. So Ahab killed him and took it from him. God (through Elijah) condemned his wickedness and said he would punish him.

King David (a man after God's own heart who nonetheless fell into serious sin more than once) took another man's wife and purposely had that man killed in battle. God responded by taking one of David's sons and promising that the rest of them would fight for the rest of David's life.

Later on, (End of 2 Samuel IIRC) David took a census for the purpose of conscripting people into his army. God judged him again.

Modern Christians generally allow their modern day kings (with the exception of the adultery part) to do all of the above and they think its OK as long as its the law.

Christianity is not the problem. Nationalism is the problem.

[CaptUSA]

Oh, now stop it. Before this thread gets moved to the contentious religion forum.

[Christian Liberty]

We could shave some votes off the Huck train if the pro-liberty side did not appear to be stone-faced aloof, or outright hostile to moral issues. Just because we want to avoid getting sidetracked by wedge issues, doesn't mean there is NO connection between moral decline and the loss of liberty. A culture that allows the legal slaughter of the unborn, for example, shouldn't be surprised that not log after, it sees its government allow torture, rendition, no-due-process detention, and drone assassinations of civilians as well.

This is a good point, actually. Although, there is one issue I see with the connection (note that I am VERY sympathetic here, and I don't think abortion should be legal.) Abortion is mostly something the government permits. Now, they'll pay for it to, but that comes along with a number of welfare programs that government provides. By contrast, the government doesn't "permit" torture, drone assassinations, and infinite detention. If you do any of those things to any of your neighbors, you will be prosecuted. Government is ACTIVELY doing those things.

And I guess my question, from one Christian to another, is this: Certainly abortion should be legal, but should that be our first priority? Is it even conceivable that the kind of government that will torture and murder could ever protect life? I mean, theft is illegal now and its not like the victims ever actually get compensated. I was reading LRC recently and Bob Wenzel pointed out (I don't care if you love him or hate him, just consider the statement for what it is) that if you call cops after getting robbed, you will almost never get your property back. Can a government like this protect the unborn? Should we even want it to, or should we just want to get rid of it? Would we really care that Nazi Germany did nothing to stop abortion, or would we want to stop it from actually killing people itself before we do that?

Mind you, again, I want abortion to be illegal. And if it were put up to vote, I'd vote for the law provided no good reason not to. But I'm getting to the point where I tend to think a "pro-choice" candidate who doesn't want the government itself to commit murder is superior to a "pro-life" candidate like Mike Huckabee who is all for torture and drone murders. Now, I'm not saying you have to pick the lesser of two evils, and I am perfectly OK with "none of the above" but where should our priorities be? I'm questioning the purpose of trying to stop legalized murder when the government ITSELF is murderous. Its like unleashing a dragon to get rid of a swarm of street thugs.


While Huckabee doesn't acknowledge these connections, he does bring up the relevance morality has as a partial explanation to our general blight. The voting bloc he culls by doing so can also be mined by Rand and the movement, but we need to lose the wholesale contemptuous attitude towards those voters in order to win over a faction of them.

I actually agree with Huck, I just think he's a scumbag who should practice what he preaches and stop advocating murder and fascism. I'm not saying that prostituting oneself or smoking crack is something that is helpful to maintaining liberty (And while I disagree with the social conservatives who want to ban such activities, I do recognize that they are harmful and don't believe people should do them) but I think the crimes politicians commit every day, and even cops commit every day, are far MORE indicative of how messed up our society is than sexual libertinism and so forth.

For what its worth, I'm not without my sympathies to the social conservatives. I started out as one. I'm still pro-life and extremely so at that. I still share most personal level morals (ie. non-political morals) with social conservatives. Sometimes I feel alienated from my fellow libertarians as much so, if not more so, than social conservatives because many libertarians have a liberal view of culture and I have a very conservative view of culture. But, honestly, as far as the decline of our society goes, I'm far more concerned with I guess the "high level" moral issues like drone warfare, the lying and spying, the wars, the torture, abortion* (another kind of murder), this whole idea that mass redistribution of wealth and fraud are fine, this whole idea that its OK to control other people's personal lives, heck, the idea that "law enforcement" is "just another job" and that "just following orders" is morally acceptable... maybe I'm too politically focused, but I'm more concerned about that kind of stuff than I am about stuff like gay marriage, prostitution, drug use, and so forth. And again, I'm not saying those things are good, but I guess... I know unbelievers are going to live lives of sin, at the very least I wish they'd pick non-aggressive sins, if that makes sense.

*Abortion would be one point where I put high priority on an issue just as the social conservative does, though even then I'm not sure it is the single most important issue, I am open to being convinced.

[Christian Liberty]

Oh, now stop it. Before this thread gets moved to the contentious religion forum.

I'm not telling you to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. But I think its completely valid to discuss what the Bible actually says about politics.

[Crashland]

Um, what? Two people can have the same moral principles for different reasons. That's what Adams was saying. Liberty needs morality to survive. Whether you get that from religion or some other means. Huckabee may see religion as the only means, but we know better. I think he was trying to put this sentiment into his own words. I disagree with him on many things, but this is not one of them.

Rand has also said basically the same thing in his speech at faith and freedom in Iowa earlier this year. However, the quote "liberty needs morality to survive" -- if by "morality" one means their morality, then the statement is incorrect, and if by "morality" one means anyone's morality, then the statement is meaningless.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand has also said basically the same thing in his speech at faith and freedom in Iowa earlier this year. However, the quote "liberty needs morality to survive" -- if by "morality" one means their morality, then the statement is incorrect, and if by "morality" one means anyone's morality, then the statement is meaningless.

The way I take those types of statements is that there's no liberty without responsibility. To paraphrase Rand Paul, if everyone just "ran around naked and smoked pot" I don't think that would necessarily be the greatest society to live in, or that that society could necessarily sustain itself. Now, of course, it should be legal to do that in a free society, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

I don't think it means we all have to have the EXACT same morality, but I think the point is that libertines aren't exactly helping liberty, and I tend to agree.

[Crashland]

The way I take those types of statements is that there's no liberty without responsibility. To paraphrase Rand Paul, if everyone just "ran around naked and smoked pot" I don't think that would necessarily be the greatest society to live in, or that that society could necessarily sustain itself. Now, of course, it should be legal to do that in a free society, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

I don't think it means we all have to have the EXACT same morality, but I think the point is that libertines aren't exactly helping liberty, and I tend to agree.

I can kind of agree with that. I don't really see the point of the statement though. Does it mean to say that we should not or can not have liberty if everyone was irresponsible all the time?

[Peace&Freedom]

And I guess my question, from one Christian to another, is this: Certainly abortion should be legal, but should that be our first priority? Is it even conceivable that the kind of government that will torture and murder could ever protect life? I mean, theft is illegal now and its not like the victims ever actually get compensated. I was reading LRC recently and Bob Wenzel pointed out (I don't care if you love him or hate him, just consider the statement for what it is) that if you call cops after getting robbed, you will almost never get your property back. Can a government like this protect the unborn? Should we even want it to, or should we just want to get rid of it? Would we really care that Nazi Germany did nothing to stop abortion, or would we want to stop it from actually killing people itself before we do that?

Most rapists are not caught or convicted, most homicides are similarly unsolved, etc. Should we forego having civil laws against them as well? The point remains that innocent life has basic rights to life, liberty and property, and even a minimum government is required to provide protection of their basic rights. If you want to argue that the US is a failed state in terms of its incompetence in suppressing crime, that is one thing, but it does not follow that it does not have an obligation to protect basic rights because of that incompetence.

Or perhaps the agenda is really the state expanding its power and control, in which case these "failures" may be the government exercising competence in achieving its real goals. Coarsening the morality of the culture (by acclimating it to such things as legalized child killing, for example) leads to more compromised people, with weakened backbone to resist further extensions of government force.

The Nazi's actions in this regard (demonizing the Jewish population, etc) led to its later atrocities. So focusing on the dead canary in the coal mine is relevant to dealing with the greater evil down the line. The point is, you can't just get rid of the total state or other grad level concerns, if you failed the kindergarden test of resistance, by allowing for such things as legal abortion. We need to appeal to the social conservatives by acknowledging moral decline is part of the reason we are in the jam we are in.

[Matt Collins]

Anyone else remember this?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaJW7nXw30A

[Christian Liberty]

I can kind of agree with that. I don't really see the point of the statement though. Does it mean to say that we should not or can not have liberty if everyone was irresponsible all the time?]

I would say "can not." Liberty is a moral good in and of itself, but I don't think it would be sustainable in reality without responsibility.

And I think Christian morality is a part of the equation as well, or at least Christian culture. I know there are some atheists who are completely dedicated to liberty for whatever reasons, but atheism leads to utilitarianism as a pure default.


Most rapists are not caught or convicted, most homicides are similarly unsolved, etc. Should we forego having civil laws against them as well? The point remains that innocent life has basic rights to life, liberty and property, and even a minimum government is required to provide protection of their basic rights. If you want to argue that the US is a failed state in terms of its incompetence in suppressing crime, that is one thing, but it does not follow that it does not have an obligation to protect basic rights because of that incompetence.

Or perhaps the agenda is really the state expanding its power and control, in which case these "failures" may be the government exercising competence in achieving its real goals. Coarsening the morality of the culture (by acclimating it to such things as legalized child killing, for example) leads to more compromised people, with weakened backbone to resist further extensions of government force.

The Nazi's actions in this regard (demonizing the Jewish population, etc) led to its later atrocities. So focusing on the dead canary in the coal mine is relevant to dealing with the greater evil down the line. The point is, you can't just get rid of the total state or other grad level concerns, if you failed the kindergarden test of resistance, by allowing for such things as legal abortion. We need to appeal to the social conservatives by acknowledging moral decline is part of the reason we are in the jam we are in.

I agree that moral decline is part of the issue. But my issue is more where do you start? I don't think allowing the killing of the unborn is the root of the problem. I think the tolerance for aggressive violence is the root of the problem (which includes abortion but isn't limited to it.) So, I think at least a large chunk of the State's institutional violence may have to be removed first. And I do fear that if abortion were banned right now, no abortion doctors would be targeted but it would be used as an excuse to institute a police state. Even still, I support anti-abortion laws on deontological grounds. I'm just not sure that that's the absolute first issue we should be trying to change.

[jjdoyle]

Anyone else remember this?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaJW7nXw30A

Few will care. The same voters lined up behind Mitt Romney in 2012, and John McCain in 2008. They had HORRIBLE records.

[Henry Rogue]

If Huckabee's issue with Liberty is integrity. I have to wonder, how do you go about legislating integrity?

[anaconda]

Clearly only fundamental Christians can have liberty

And are willing to "live with integrity." :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

Few will care. The same voters lined up behind Mitt Romney in 2012, and John McCain in 2008. They had HORRIBLE records.
Huckabee cannot win the GOP nomination... he isn't part of the establishment, and his base has almost abandoned him after his pro-common core and pro-amnesty stances. He also doesn't have the large fundraising sources.

My guess is that he is trying to get himself a higher dollar contract by making his name brand more valuable.

[fr33]

Huckaby will never be president.

[jjdoyle]

Huckabee cannot win the GOP nomination... he isn't part of the establishment, and his base has almost abandoned him after his pro-common core and pro-amnesty stances. He also doesn't have the large fundraising sources.

My guess is that he is trying to get himself a higher dollar contract by making his name brand more valuable.


Huckabee cannot win the GOP nomination... he isn't part of the establishment, and his base has almost abandoned him after his pro-common core and pro-amnesty stances. He also doesn't have the large fundraising sources.

My guess is that he is trying to get himself a higher dollar contract by making his name brand more valuable.

The ignorance of the average GOP voter is not to be forgotten. John "Amnesty" McCain won it. Mitt "Healthcare" Romney won it. Mike "Pro-Common Core (that flipped to negative now)" Huckabee is the same.
And as for fundraising, that doesn't matter, as much as a candidate that is hand picked to win it by TPTB.

McCain's 2008 campaign had serious fundraising issues early on, and still won it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/07/mccains-campaign-to-report-debt-on-july-15/49978/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7837.html

McCain had no GOOD record to run on.
Romney didn't either.

Records don't matter a hill of beans, because if they did, Ron Paul would have walked into the White House with 120,000,000+ votes in the general election.

And in 2008, I think Huckabee wanted it to be Clinton vs. Huckabee. Both with Arkansas connections (Governors). Both being able to make that "play" in the general election.
Will Huckabee use it to raise speaking contracts, book contracts, TV contracts? Probably. They all apparently try to do that.

[cindy25]

Huck is backed by Fox, so don't underestimate him. he will win Iowa, Rand will win NH. SC and FL decide it

[robert68]

“Liberty” to Huck isn’t individual liberty at the outset.

[Warlord]

Huck wont win with Rand on the ballot. Rand is too good as a first choice so it's different than 08 and '12. Rand will be onthe ballot and is the one to beat

[Warlord]

The ignorance of the average GOP voter is not to be forgotten. John "Amnesty" McCain won it. Mitt "Healthcare" Romney won it. Mike "Pro-Common Core (that flipped to negative now)" Huckabee is the same.
And as for fundraising, that doesn't matter, as much as a candidate that is hand picked to win it by TPTB.

McCain's 2008 campaign had serious fundraising issues early on, and still won it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/07/mccains-campaign-to-report-debt-on-july-15/49978/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7837.html

McCain had no GOOD record to run on.
Romney didn't either.

Records don't matter a hill of beans, because if they did, Ron Paul would have walked into the White House with 120,000,000+ votes in the general election.

And in 2008, I think Huckabee wanted it to be Clinton vs. Huckabee. Both with Arkansas connections (Governors). Both being able to make that "play" in the general election.
Will Huckabee use it to raise speaking contracts, book contracts, TV contracts? Probably. They all apparently try to do that.

The difference Rand is on the ballot this time so a McCain in 08 or Romney in '12 not going to happen as they never had to run against Rand. Once the ads start and Rand sells himself he is the clear superior candidate. Ron was seen as gadfly and mocked by the media and could never pull more than 20% in a primary. Rand is electable. Still lets not be overconfident but the fact is Rand is a superior candidate to any of them

[Warlord]

By the way... you only need to be in the top 3 in Iowa so if they decide Huck as their president (LOL) then it;'s not over since Huck has no chance anywhere else.

[jjdoyle]

By the way... you only need to be in the top 3 in Iowa so if they decide Huck as their president (LOL) then it;'s not over since Huck has no chance anywhere else.

Huckabee took 8 states in 2008, before dropping out.
The media (some) are already treating Rand as a joke, like they did Ron, especially after his latest foreign policy statement.

And, I look at the media the same now, as I did in 2008 and 2012. What has changed between then and now, to make me think the media cares about open and honest reporting? Nothing.

If Huckabee runs, he threatens to take the southern states. If Christie runs, that's the northern.

[Warlord]

Huckabee took 8 states in 2008, before dropping out.
The media (some) are already treating Rand as a joke, like they did Ron, especially after his latest foreign policy statement.

And, I look at the media the same now, as I did in 2008 and 2012. What has changed between then and now, to make me think the media cares about open and honest reporting? Nothing.

If Huckabee runs, he threatens to take the southern states. If Christie runs, that's the northern.


Rand appears on covers of magazines and has slick ads. Ron was never electable because he was seen as a gadfly. There is a huge difference. Just wait and see. Huck is going no where with Rand on the ballot and McCain/Romney never had to face a Rand Paul

[jjdoyle]

Huck is backed by Fox, so don't underestimate him. he will win Iowa, Rand will win NH. SC and FL decide it

I would say Huckabee wins South Carolina, based on how close he came in 2008 to winning it. Florida, I honestly have no clue. If Bush runs, I would expect the state to go his way. If Christie runs, maybe to him? Florida went to McCain in 2008 (Romney 2nd), and then Romney in 2012.

[jjdoyle]

Rand appears on covers of magazines and has slick ads. Ron was never electable because he was seen as a gadfly. There is a huge difference. Just wait and see. Huck is going no where with Rand on the ballot and McCain/Romney never had to face a Rand Paul

Except, Ron was electable. It's why supporters donated nearly $60 million to two recent presidential campaigns. If John McCain was electable, Ron Paul was electable. If Rick Santorum was electable, Ron Paul was electable.

[Warlord]

Except, Ron was electable. It's why supporters donated nearly $60 million to two recent presidential campaigns. If John McCain was electable, Ron Paul was electable. If Rick Santorum was electable, Ron Paul was electable.

As much as i love Ron he was never going to win. Rand gets attention because his profile is superior. He's an elected senator (has never lost statewide). He is in a strong position with his slick ads and his superior profile not to mention the machine he will inherit from Ron. McCain and Romney never had to face a superior candidate like Rand and if they had to they'd lose to him. wait and see.

[osan]

"Let me tell you something," said Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor. "... Liberty cannot function unless there are people who are willing to live with integrity."


And of course the majority of meaners will never ask the $64, central-pillar question to that assertion: what defines "integrity" here?

Huckabee may not be a bad guy... Don't know him so I cannot say, but when he spouts off with ill-defined nonsense like this he comes off as an arrogant douche to anyone in possession of reason.

And why is it that I never see/hear anyone challenging these jokers on such points? I never see it. Of course, I don't watch TV as I am fond of retaining what modicum of intellect the years have allowed me, which admittedly is not that much anymore.

Not to hijack the thread, but it would seem worthwhile to discuss the meaning of "integrity" as it might apply here to Huckabee's imperative.

[mrsat_98]

m 78
i 54
c 18
h 48
a 6
e 30
l 72
d 24
h 48
u 126
c 18
k 66
a 6
b 12
e 30
e 30
_________
666

[Christian Liberty]

The difference Rand is on the ballot this time so a McCain in 08 or Romney in '12 not going to happen as they never had to run against Rand. Once the ads start and Rand sells himself he is the clear superior candidate. Ron was seen as gadfly and mocked by the media and could never pull more than 20% in a primary. Rand is electable. Still lets not be overconfident but the fact is Rand is a superior candidate to any of them

The media is going to attack Rand relentlessly. Whether the voters will believe it I guess remains to be seen.


And of course the majority of meaners will never ask the $64, central-pillar question to that assertion: what defines "integrity" here?

Huckabee may not be a bad guy... Don't know him so I cannot say, but when he spouts off with ill-defined nonsense like this he comes off as an arrogant douche to anyone in possession of reason.

And why is it that I never see/hear anyone challenging these jokers on such points? I never see it. Of course, I don't watch TV as I am fond of retaining what modicum of intellect the years have allowed me, which admittedly is not that much anymore.

Not to hijack the thread, but it would seem worthwhile to discuss the meaning of "integrity" as it might apply here to Huckabee's imperative.


You're more generous than I am. Huck is a venomous snake. I have ZERO respect for him, and I take it as one of Christianity's black points that he was a pastor.

as for the rest, yes, politicians purposely will not define "integrity." Its kind of tough to define anyway, but politicians will purposely avoid doing it for their own purposes.

I agree with the statement but not the intended implication that all sorts of stuff needs to be banned in order for liberty to flourish.

[Wooden Indian]

Paul said in Romans 2:14


for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,…

Morality is not exclusive to any club.

[acptulsa]

..
'Everybody is running around in circles, announcing that somebody's pinched their liberty. Now the greatest aid that I know of that anyone could give the world today would be a correct definition of "liberty". What might be one class's liberty might be another class's poison. I guess absolute liberty couldn't mean anything but that anybody can do anything they want to, any time they want to. Well, any half-wit can tell you that wouldn't work. So the question arises, "How much liberty can I get away with?"

'Well, you can get no more liberty than you give. That's my definition, but you got perfect liberty to work out your own.'--Will Rogers

[mrsat_98]

I like Mike Huckabee but I don't want him to be president.

[robert68]

As much as i love Ron he was never going to win. Rand gets attention because his profile is superior. He's an elected senator (has never lost statewide)...

In defense of papa Ron in the comparison, he was residing in the 2nd most populated state in the US (over 26 million presently), not the 26th most populated state (around 4.4 million presently).

[acptulsa]

Except, Ron was electable. It's why supporters donated nearly $60 million to two recent presidential campaigns. If John McCain was electable, Ron Paul was electable. If Rick Santorum was electable, Ron Paul was electable.

A mighty big 'if' or two in there.

I didn't see a shred of evidence either one is true.

[jjdoyle]

A mighty big 'if' or two in there.

I didn't see a shred of evidence either one is true.

John McCain won the nomination of the GOP.
Rick Santorum got more votes than Ron Paul in 2012. Nearly double. And was in the race for a shorter amount of time when votes were being cast, and raised less money than Ron Paul 2012.

[invisible]

John McCain won the nomination of the GOP.
Rick Santorum got more votes than Ron Paul in 2012. Nearly double. And was in the race for a shorter amount of time when votes were being cast, and raised less money than Ron Paul 2012.

Media propaganda is a powerful tool.

[jjdoyle]

Media propaganda is a powerful tool.

Absolutely. And I haven't seen anything from the media, to make me think things have changed. It's just like between 2008 and 2012. Ron Paul was a hero between elections. The best, most common sense, Congressman since ever. Then 2012 rolled around, and the talking points changed.
Rick Santorum became George Washington.

[osan]

You're more generous than I am. Huck is a venomous snake.

Other than Ron Paul, I do not follow "personalities", so I would therefore ask you why you characterize him this way? What egregious things has he done? Just curious.


as for the rest, yes, politicians purposely will not define "integrity." Its kind of tough to define anyway

Actually, it is not. If you have a sufficient understanding of the principles that define proper human relations, defining "integrity" as apropos to Huckabee's quoted statement is rather a simple affair. But of course we know he is very much unlikely to be working from the correct definition, preferring his own personal version such that he is able to condone and promote all manner of hideous violations of human rights. I am fair to middling confident he probably hates ***** - his prerogative, of course, but I might speculate that part of living with integrity for him includes no butty-fukky... at least between guys. ;)


but politicians will purposely avoid doing it for their own purposes.

Well, obviously. My point was why nobody appears to be taking them to task on this.


I agree with the statement but not the intended implication that all sorts of stuff needs to be banned in order for liberty to flourish.

Without the necessary definition, I cannot accept the statement as valid, as good sounding as it may otherwise be.

[osan]

Except, Ron was electable. It's why supporters donated nearly $60 million to two recent presidential campaigns. If John McCain was electable, Ron Paul was electable. If Rick Santorum was electable, Ron Paul was electable.


Au contraire, mon ami... Ron Paul n'est pas éligible. He was never electable because the American meaner, what H. L. Mencken termed boobus Americanus, is a fathomlessly corrupt idiot. Make ye no mistake on this point - the average American is as crooked as the days are long at the poles. He is willfully stupid and depraved to so shocking an extent that the rest of the nation simply refuses to believe what they see, the cognitive dissonance so jarringly violent to their intellects that they chalk what they perceive up to something else - anything else that will soften the blow that the actual truth would deliver, perhaps rendering catatonic those realizing the full implications of it all. After all, in most cases the psyche can withstand only so much shock, beyond which it switches into self-preservation mode.

The corpses of McCain and Frothy would be reelected to the Oval office ten thousand times in a row before a Ron Paul would ever attain that post. Those really in charge would see to that.

[devil21]

We could shave some votes off the Huck train if the pro-liberty side did not appear to be stone-faced aloof, or outright hostile to moral issues. Just because we want to avoid getting sidetracked by wedge issues, doesn't mean there is NO connection between moral decline and the loss of liberty. A culture that allows the legal slaughter of the unborn, for example, shouldn't be surprised that not long after, it sees its government allow torture, rendition, no-due-process detention, and drone assassinations of civilians as well.

Funny that Huck and his supporters generally support the latter while espousing the former. Protect life! Protect life! Bomb Iran! Bomb Iran!

Morality and hypocrisy are not compatible principles.

[Christian Liberty]

Other than Ron Paul, I do not follow "personalities", so I would therefore ask you why you characterize him this way? What egregious things has he done? Just curious.



Taken from Wikipedia:

Huckabee's stance on drugs:



Huckabee said that he supports the death penalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty), but only reluctantly. He believes that eliminating parole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole) gives no incentive for rehabilitation,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-hope-7) and believes that more prisons should be built, and their management should be privatized.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-issues-4) As Governor, he granted 1,033 pardons and commutations which is ten times more pardons than Governor Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) granted during his tenure.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-8)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-9) He supports flexible federal block grants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_grant) for crime programs, and supports tougher juvenile crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenile_crime) penalties, but believes that the states should set them. Huckabee supports drug courts for non-violent drug offenders, believes that drug education fails and drug punishment works, and that stricter penalties for drug-related crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug-related_crime) should be enforced. He opposes the medical use of marijuana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis), and said he would continue to raid, arrest, prosecute, and imprison patients who are using marijuana as a medicine.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-10)




So much for the 10th amendment, not to mention liberty....

On the military:


Huckabee supports a larger military and a fifty percent increase in defense spending. In December 2007, he wrote:

"The Bush administration plans to increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps by about 92,000 troops over the next five years. We can and must do this in two to three years. I recognize the challenges of increasing our enlistments without lowering standards and of expanding training facilities and personnel, and that is one of the reasons why we must increase our military budget. Right now, we spend about 3.9 percent of our GDP on defense, compared with about six percent in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. We need to return to that six percent level."[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-foreignaffairs.org-72)




So much for less government and less intervention.

Taxes:


In January 2007 on Meet the Press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Press), Huckabee said "I think you've got to be very careful. I wouldn’t propose any new taxes. I wouldn’t support any. But if we’re in a situation where we are in a different level of war, where there is no other option, I think that it’s a very dangerous position to make pledges that are outside the most important pledge you make, and that is the oath you take to uphold the Constitution and protect the people of the United States."[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-79) Grover Norquist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist), the president of Americans for Tax Reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Tax_Reform), who in 2006 called the governor a “serial tax increaser,"[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-80) stated recently, "Gov. Huckabee recognizes that the challenge is to rein in spending and reduce taxes."[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-pledge-81) Huckabee supports theFairTax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax), which would do away with all federal taxes and replace them with a single national sales tax.[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-82) In March 2007, Huckabee signed the Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge of Americans for Tax Reform, promising not to increase taxes at the federal level.[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-pledge-81) Huckabee cut taxes while governor, which saved Arkansas' citizens close to $380 million.[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-fiscalforbes-83) For 2007, his state enjoyed a surplus of nearly $850 million.[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-fiscalforbes-83) Huckabee has voiced support for the FairTax system, and wants to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service). He has called FairTax the flatter, fairer, finite, family friendly overhaul. He lowered taxes 94 times, although critics claim that most of these were small deductions that the legislature initiated.[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-84) He supported the removal of the poorest taxpayers from the tax rolls. However, Huckabee has also been criticized for his fiscal record. Huckabee supported 5 tax increases, prompting the Club for Growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_for_Growth) to label him a liberal.[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-85) He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline in 1999, a $5.25 bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001, and publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-86) He believes that states should independently determine estate taxes.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-issues-4)




So much for our money belonging to us rather than the State.

Stubborn on foreign policy:


He believes that opposition to the George W. Bush's Iraq War troop surge of 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007) is dangerous, and that the job in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) must be finished and finished right. Huckabee stated:

We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don't pick something off the shelf I can't afford to buy. Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It's our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. I 100% agree that we can't leave until we've left with honor because, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we're there. We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.[90] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-90)
"We" didn't buy it Mike. Warmongering scumbags like you did. I was 8 years old at the time, people like you destroyed my future. Thanks a lot.

Israel:


Huckabee is "America’s leading Christian Zionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism) politician."[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-92) He believes that the land of Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) was promised to the modern-day Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews) by God. He has written that, "the Jews have a God-given right to reclaim land given to their ancestors and taken away from them."[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-93)
The Jewish Russian Telegraph reported that "When asked about a Palestinian state, Gov. Huckabee stated that he supports creating a Palestinian state, but believes that it should be formed outside of Israel. He named Egypt and Saudi Arabia as possible alternatives, noting that the Arabs have far more land than the Israelis and that it would only be fair for other Arab nations to give the Palestinians land for a state, rather than carving it out of the tiny Israeli state."[94] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-94) He calls Israel an "ally", "America's greatest friend in the region", and says Israel should have access to advanced weapons and technology.[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-95)
Huckabee first visited Israel as a teenager,[96] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-96) and has returned numerous times since then.[97] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-97) In August 2008, he visited Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) along with New York State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State) Assemblyman Dov Hikind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Hikind) as a guest of the Ateret Cohanim religious seminary's Jerusalem Reclamation Project, a New York-based foundation that works to move Jews into Jerusalem's Muslim Quarter. During a visit to East Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem), Huckabee stated "It is a historic reality that Jerusalem, and the entire land, was originally intended to be a homeland for the Jewish people. The Palestinians should in fact have a place and opportunity to settle, but it doesn't have to be in Jerusalem."[98] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-98)[99] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-99) On the same occasion he called a potential division of Jerusalem "unimaginable."[100] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-100)
In August 2009, Huckabee visited Israel again this time focusing on visits to settlements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement) and meetings with settler leaders, including a dinner at the Shepherd Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherd_Hotel), the site of a controversial planned housing project in East Jerusalem. Upon arrival he stated: "It concerns me when there are some in the United States who would want to tell Israel that it cannot allow people to live in their own country, wherever they want".[101] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-101)[102] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-102)
He has advocated for the release of convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard).[103] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee#cite_note-103)

The bold would instantaneously be enough for me to reject someone as a politician, and this is coming from one of the most vocal Christians on these forums. But writing dispensational crap into your foreign policy is just awful.

Is that enough for you?;)

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee

[HOLLYWOOD]

Before the IRS scandal... Hypocrite Huckabee and his Arkansas .gov staff destroyed all communication records, emails and hard drives/servers in Little Rock before leaving. Mr Conservative Cross has no problem coveting money from the poor people of Arkansas while making millions deceiving Americans at FOX NEWS CORP.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/22/us/wifey190.jpg

TAX HIKE MIKE living large off the people's money.