Prediction

[Bill_Thompson]

It may mean nothing -- or it may mean a lot. If a candidate is tied in a 3 way race in your party, it can mean that no matter who is elected, 2/3rds of the people will vote against you. It obviously means most people in your party would rather have someone else win.



I am going to go out on a limb here and predict that Huckabee is going to be our next president. Will the 2/3rds of the disappointed Democrats throw their support for the Democratic front-runner? Will gay marrage and abortion be as inportant to them as having a sincere, honest, and likable person in the White House?

[Enzo]

Gee Bill, if only that weren't a false choice.

Your analysis ignores that those democrats are selecting a preference, not an I hate those other guys declaration. For all the ones preferring one of the "other two," they will support the one that gets chosen.

In your own example Huckabee and ROmney have the same numbers as the Democrats. So in their cases the same thing exists - in each case most of their party wishes someone else would win.

Will the 2/3 disappointed Republicans throw THEIR support behind Huck? Or whoever?

Once the Americans get a snoot full of Huckabee, they will have to balance that attraction to a warm friendly affable guy against the fact that he really sincerely believes that the earth and the universe are only 6000 years old, and the Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's flood.

Gay Marriage is not the main issue for the vast majority of Democrats.

[Dragon Star]

Actually, gay marriage isn't a fucking issue at all. But somehow it became more important then a war, immigration, and stem-cell research.

I love America.

[Bill_Thompson]

Actually, gay marriage isn't a fucking issue at all. But somehow it became more important then a war, immigration, and stem-cell research.

I love America.

Marraige is a fucking issue. You will see one day.

[Bill_Thompson]

Gee Bill, if only that weren't a false choice.

Your analysis ignores that those democrats are selecting a preference, not an I hate those other guys declaration. For all the ones preferring one of the "other two," they will support the one that gets chosen.

In your own example Huckabee and ROmney have the same numbers as the Democrats. So in their cases the same thing exists - in each case most of their party wishes someone else would win.

Will the 2/3 disappointed Republicans throw THEIR support behind Huck? Or whoever?

Once the Americans get a snoot full of Huckabee, they will have to balance that attraction to a warm friendly affable guy against the fact that he really sincerely believes that the earth and the universe are only 6000 years old, and the Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's flood.

Gay Marriage is not the main issue for the vast majority of Democrats.

Huckabee is not a biblical fundamentalist. So I think you are wrong.

I think you are reading a lot of progressive and left-slanting hype and propaganda. First of all, Wolf Blitzer threw this 6000 year old thing question to him at the debate and Huckabee handled it well.

Janine Garofalo on the Daily Show confused a Christian with a biblical fundamentalist too and Mark Stewart corrected her before quickly changing subjects. There are well-intending people in this world who think the biblical stories are just that. Stories. They are intended to help people and not to be taken literally.

Huckabee is not a biblical fundamentalist. There is a big difference between a Baptist or a Methodist and a biblical fundamentalist. Whackos who think that the world is flat or that the world is only a few thousand years old are not main stream Christians. Even the Pope has said that the bible is not to be taken literally.

Gay Marriage is not the main issue for the vast majority of Democrats? Why? I know that the idea of a constitutional amendment like some right-wingers talk about is nutty. And because it is nutty, it is unlikely it will ever pass. So why is it the main issue?

The war in Iraq is not the main issue for the vast majority of Democrats? Is that because things are going well in Iraq that they have to switch to gay marriage?

[Dragon Star]

Actually, gay marriage isn't a fucking issue at all. But somehow it became more important then a war, immigration, and stem-cell research.

I love America.

Marraige is a fucking issue. You will see one day.

I take it you didn't get laid last night...

[Bill_Thompson]

Actually, gay marriage isn't a fucking issue at all. But somehow it became more important then a war, immigration, and stem-cell research.

I love America.

Marraige is a fucking issue. You will see one day.

I take it you didn't get laid last night...

I did, actually.

Why did you think I didn't?

Why is my sex life on your mind? And I don't like where this is going.

Ah, you must have thought I meant "one day you will see me fucking but not today". Well, that is not what I said. I meant you will see one day that marraige is a fucking issue. In fact, that is what I said. I meant you will see one day that marraige is a fucking issue for yourself. I did not say that one day you will see how for me, personally, my marrage is a fucking issue. I did not say that. Your wishful thinking has clouded your ability to read accurately.

[Dragon Star]

You're so fucked up, Bill.

[Bill_Thompson]

:mrgreen:

You're so fucked up, Bill.

You are the one who said:

Actually, gay marriage isn't a fucking issue at all.

So why not just be roommates with your partner if it isn't a fucking issue at all?

[Bill_Thompson]

Actually, gay marriage isn't a fucking issue at all. But somehow it became more important then a war, immigration, and stem-cell research.

I love America.

Actually, we are on the same page here. The Federal government does not have much say in the gay marrage issue since the Constitutional Amendment that the far right wants has no chance of becoming reality.

I think the Democrates are clawing for something to get attention since #1) The economy really isn't all that bad. Unemployment is down to 4 percent.
#2) November had the lowest casualities in The war in Iraq for the last 4 years.

Also, I heard that the stem cell research has advanced to the point where they do not even have to use embrios. So that is off the table too.

[Bill_Thompson]

Once the Americans get a snoot full of Huckabee, they will have to balance that attraction to a warm friendly affable guy against the fact that he really sincerely believes that the earth and the universe are only 6000 years old, and the Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's flood.

Evidence that you are wrong about Huckabee is found in the fact that Huckabee is sane enough to be hated by Ann Coulter:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24068

[Enzo]

Huckabee is not a biblical fundamentalist. So I think you are wrong.

Apparently Bill you do not recall the Republican candidate debate where in all were asked if any did NOT believe in evolution. Huckabee was one of those raising his hand.

Or perhaps you missed that he signed the as in USA Today some years back affirming the biblical view that women should graciously submit to the leadership of their husbands.

[Bill_Thompson]

Huckabee is not a biblical fundamentalist. So I think you are wrong.

Apparently Bill you do not recall the Republican candidate debate where in all were asked if any did NOT believe in evolution. Huckabee was one of those raising his hand.

Or perhaps you missed that he signed the as in USA Today some years back affirming the biblical view that women should graciously submit to the leadership of their husbands.

So why is Ann Coulter upset because Huckabee is not a firm supporter of declaring Darwinian Evolution a fraud like she does?

Look, evolution is science. It is not religion. It is not politics. The only thing a politician should say about it is if he thinks it should be taught in schools. Huckabee has said that it SHOULD be taught in schools.

That second point you have made sounds suspiciously like something taken out of context. This is a trick that a liberal co-worker tried to pull on me. Progressive news media outlets love to pull this trick too by taking one or two lines out of a book or a speech Huckabee made and then use it in a different context. I want to know what context he used this in. It seems way out of character to me form what I have seen so far.

Also, if Huckabee said he does not believe in evolution. That can mean a lot. Evolution is a fact. Not believing in it can mean someone does not subscribe to the ideology of survival of the fittest alone. And that, in fact, is a good thing.

[Enzo]

Evolution is a fact. Not believing in it can mean someone does not subscribe to the ideology of survival of the fittest alone. And that, in fact, is a good thing.

What kind of spin nonsense is that? Not believing in facts as an asset?

Gravity is a fact, the world is not flat is a fact. Would not believing in them be a good thing too?

Nothing was taken out of context, Bill, Huckabee was one of a number of religious leaders that took out a full page ad in the USA Today a few years ago to proclaim a number of biblically correct ideals, that being one of them. In fact it it was the dawn of a potential schism in the Baptist church.

[Dragon Star]

:mrgreen:

You're so fucked up, Bill.

You are the one who said:

Actually, gay marriage isn't a fucking issue at all.

So why not just be roommates with your partner if it isn't a fucking issue at all?

Six minutes later...

Actually, we are on the same page here.

[Bill_Thompson]

Actually, gay marriage isn't a fucking issue at all.

So why not just be roommates with your partner if it isn't a fucking issue at all?

Six minutes later...

Actually, we are on the same page here.

The first part was a play on words.

Marrage being a fucking issue? Come - on. I would like to hope you can understand the humor.

Examples of play on words:

• "Marrage is not a fucking issue" if it is not about fucking, why be married?
• "Same Sex Marrage" anyone who is married will tell you it is the same sex.

[Bill_Thompson]

Huckabee is not a biblical fundamentalist. So I think you are wrong.

Apparently Bill you do not recall the Republican candidate debate where in all were asked if any did NOT believe in evolution. Huckabee was one of those raising his hand.

Or perhaps you missed that he signed the as in USA Today some years back affirming the biblical view that women should graciously submit to the leadership of their husbands.

I should remind you that this is a prediction. I do not agree with Huckabee on everything. And if I could wave a magic wand, I would have a different kind of candidate running for president. I am only predicting what I think will be the outcome because of the mood and ideas of the nation.

[Superluminal]

My prediction: About October of 08, Micheal Moore will release another crappy, biased movie, that will win a lot of awards, will be a hit in Europe and almost no one will watch it.

[Dragon Star]

Actually, gay marriage isn't a fucking issue at all.

So why not just be roommates with your partner if it isn't a fucking issue at all?

Six minutes later...

Actually, we are on the same page here.

The first part was a play on words.

Marrage being a fucking issue? Come - on. I would like to hope you can understand the humor.

Examples of play on words:

• "Marrage is not a fucking issue" if it is not about fucking, why be married?
• "Same Sex Marrage" anyone who is married will tell you it is the same sex.

I understood that, thus my use of a smiley for the irony. :wink:

Despite what you think, I'm not actually a fucking moron (or a Mormon).

[Bill_Thompson]

Huckabee is not a biblical fundamentalist. So I think you are wrong.

Apparently Bill you do not recall the Republican candidate debate where in all were asked if any did NOT believe in evolution. Huckabee was one of those raising his hand.

Or perhaps you missed that he signed the as in USA Today some years back affirming the biblical view that women should graciously submit to the leadership of their husbands.

Ok I looked that up.

My God, if this is the worst thing you can dig up on the guy, he is doing pretty well.

I should remind you that he was a Southern Baptist Minister. You would expect someone from that background to think like that. There are much worse bones to have in your closet.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stum ... -mean.aspx

Poor Mike Huckabee. He can't catch a break these days--at least not with the press. (The polls: different story.)...

The latest fuel on the fire: his views on marriage. In June 1998, the Southern Baptist convention amended its official statement of beliefs for the first time in 35 years to declare that "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband." And Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist minister then serving as governor of Arkansas, signed a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the statement (along with 129 other evangelical leaders). Now, as the New York Post so poetically puts it, "HOLY HUCKABEE FACES SNIT OVER 'GALS, SUBMIT.'" DailyKos and Andrew Sullivan agree.

With non-Baptist ears hearing the SBC statement as "do whatever your husband says"--a "Father Knows Best" (if not "Flintstones") philosophy--it seems fair to ask what "submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband" actually means to a Southern Baptist like Huckabee. Seeking context, I called up Roger S. Oldham, the SBC's vice president for convention relations. Here's what he had to say on the subject:

Mike Huckabee and his wife in signing this ad in 1998 were reflecting their commitment to their core religious values as revealed in the Bible.

With the exception of the word graciously, this is language coming right out of the Biblical text Ephesians V. It is an imperative addressed to the wife. It's not an imperative addressed to the husband. In other words, the man doesn't walk around and say, "Well, you're supposed to be submissive to me." It's not a club. Subordination is not subjugation, nor is it a statement of inferiority. And "servant," by the way, is not directed toward the woman. It's directed toward the man. She is submitting to the "servant leadership" of him. He is the one who is in the role of servant.

Now, there's no doubt that there has been abuse in interpreting the Ephesians V text. There have been those over the years who have read it that the husband is to keep his wife in constant remembrance that she's to be submissive.

But ideally the Ephesians V family is a family in which there is mutual submission to one another in the fear of the Lord. Therefore, when there are matters of discussion, both husband and wife converse with each other, seeking to find consensus. In those rare instances where consensus is not reached, the wife says, "Okay, you have the responsibility and accountability to stand before God one day and give an account of the decision you're going to make. But I--voluntarily--submit to your leadership is this instance." Now, when that happens, what that does is frees the husband up. He's no longer arguing with his wife. He now has to stand before God.

I had figured you had taken something out of context. I think I was right. Nice trick!

[Enzo]

I am only predicting what I think will be the outcome because of the mood and ideas of the nation.

That is fine Bill, what the nation winds up doing is a separate issue from whether the guy is a fundamentalist or not. He is.

My God, if this is the worst thing you can dig up

Worst thing? it was merely an example that lept to mind. I don't make it out to be good bad or indifferent, but it is an example of his fundamentalist outlook. He can candy coat it all he wants, but to him - as stated in the published document he signed - the wife is bound to ultimately agree with whatever he says, not because of anything other than the bible say so.

reflecting their commitment to their core religious values as revealed in the Bible.

This is hardly out of contect, it is in fact THE context of fundamentalism.

You can bold up your neener-neener, but it doesn't make it any less false.


You might or might not agree with anything Huckabee has to say, I don't care, but the man is still a fundamentalist. His fundamentalism is not based upon your agreement with him. The American people may or may not buy his pitch and elect him, if they do you will be right. I don't put it past us, after all we voted in George W Bush twice, the second time after we already knew of his incompetence. But again, that doesn't alter the fact he is a fundamentalist.

I for one think he is therefore a dangerous man. Bush believes his war was righteous for America, and a fundamentalist might declare a war is righteous for God. And then the fur will fly.

[Bill_Thompson]

Ah, but he is NOT a fundamentalist.

A Southern Baptist is NOT a biblical fundamentalist.

I already said this. I suspect you are too enraged to catch everything wirite.

Two people can say the same thing and each means something different.

This thing is not nearly as hard-hitting as you seem to think it is. It does not mean that men are the boss of women as I quoted from that link and as the reporter quoted from that priest or minister.

Besides, he was a Southern Baptist Priest. I think that fact allows some cutting of some slack and give-and-take. There are worse things in this world. Looking into other candiates closet will find some harder violations of ethics.

If you google what Huckabee really meant, it is not as wacked-out as I think you think it means.

In fairness you should allow someone to defend themself before you should pass judgement on them.

Huckabee's traditional view of women doesn't extend to the political arena.

---------------------------

Thursday, December 13, 2007
Associated Press:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Republican Mike Huckabee's record on women's rights is coming under increased scrutiny, including his endorsement of the Southern Baptist Convention's stance that women should "submit graciously" to their husbands and his opposition to sending women into combat.

Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, defended his record Thursday, saying he appointed many women to high positions in state government and on his staff during his 10 1/2 years as Arkansas governor.

"If you look at my cabinet, I had more women in my cabinet and on my staff in key positions, including chief of staff, than any other governor probably in Arkansas history," Huckabee said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Huckabee had been asked on the TV show about his support of the Baptist convention's statement of beliefs on marriage. The former Arkansas governor and his wife Janet signed a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the statement with 129 other evangelical leaders in 1998.

"A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ," the convention says in its statement of faith. Baptist Press reported that the 1998 ad was addressed to denomination leaders and said: "You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership."

Huckabee was supported by 17 percent of women in a nationwide AP-Ipsos poll earlier this month, making him roughly even with Rudy Giuliani and John McCain for the lead among female voters among GOP presidential contenders.

Huckabee has faced questions before over his support of the marriage statement, with a rival in his 1998 re-election campaign citing the statement and accusing Huckabee of opposing equal pay for women.

"It's one thing for Mike Huckabee to think a wife should submit graciously to her husband, but it's another to have her work for less than she's worth," Democratic challenger Bill Bristow said in a 1998 ad.

Huckabee's campaign then cried foul and accused Bristow of taking a swipe at Southern Baptists.

In 1992, when Huckabee was a candidate for the U.S. Senate, he said in a 229-question survey submitted by The Associated Press that he opposed placing women in combat roles in the military "because of my strong traditional view that women should be treated with respect and dignity and not subject to the kinds of abuses that could occur in combat."

However, Huckabee's traditional view of women apparently doesn't extend to the political arena.

In the same survey, Huckabee was asked about the number of women serving in the House and Senate. He wrote: "I really cannot say whether or not the presence of so few women has made any difference in Congress, but women are certainly as capable as men of serving in the Senate."

That view also extends to the White House. Huckabee said Thursday in the ABC interview that he fully expects a woman will be elected to lead the country someday — he just hopes it won't be next year since he wants the job.

"Will there be a female president? Of course there will. And should there be? Absolutely," Huckabee said.

---------------

I for one think he is therefore a dangerous man. Bush believes his war was righteous for America, and a fundamentalist might declare a war is righteous for God. And then the fur will fly.

Bush -- as unbelievable as it might seem -- did not want to go to war. Now, since you think religious people love war, this might be hard for you to believe, but Clinton, Gore and other Democrats were pushing for harder and harder action against Saddam.

Now, since it is politically favorable for the Democrats, they are singing a different tune. They only use the line "9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq" as a political ploy now like many of the things they bank on us not remembering how they used to be.

They are also using this religious angle against the right now and you are taking the bait hook-line-and sinker.

Because Huckabee said a lot of faith based mumbo-jumbo does not mean anything politically.

Faith and tradition are one thing. Politics and your job is another thing.

Of course, the left is using any thing they can dig up and twist around into a nail to use in Huckabees coffin. I think they are goolish.

Baptists are not Fundamentalists. All Christians do not believe in global conquest by military means. I think your extreme and non sequitur views and your willingness to label all neocons as mindless, war-living dolts who think it is the 1400's does not make your views have much believability.

[Enzo]

There you go again Bill, trying to be slippery.

No one said religious people love war. You know that. What was said was that when someone wants to justify a war or feels it is justified, this fellow will claim support from God. WHen he talks of how his life is based upon his religion, that is the other side of his coin.

I have not been following the rhetoric on either side. Let them all posture without me. I came to my conclusions about Huckabee all on my own.

You are too busy trying to cram everyone into stereotypes you can't consider someone disagreeing with you. AS you are well aware, I never labelled all Baptists, all Christians, or all neocons anything. I labelled Mike Huckabee, and I label Bush. Further inferences are in your head.

Bush -- as unbelievable as it might seem -- did not want to go to war.

Thanks Bill, that is the funniest thing I've heard in a month. W was planning this war from day 1. It just didn't work out like he planned.

[troubleagain]

A Southern Baptist is NOT a biblical fundamentalist.

We're not*? I guess it depends on the definition of "fundamentalist." I thought a fundamentalist was someone who believes the Bible is the literal word of God, and to be taken literally, as well. That's what was taught in the church I was raised in, which was part of the Southern Baptist conference.

*Yeah, I'm not really a Baptist anymore.

[Bill_Thompson]

A Southern Baptist is NOT a biblical fundamentalist.

We're not*? I guess it depends on the definition of "fundamentalist." I thought a fundamentalist was someone who believes the Bible is the literal word of God, and to be taken literally, as well. That's what was taught in the church I was raised in, which was part of the Southern Baptist conference.

*Yeah, I'm not really a Baptist anymore.

OK, well, I will have to look into this more. I was sure all the heads of all the christians sects have said that the bible is not to be intrepreted literally. Could it be that your church was just one of the fringe ones clinging on to the old ways?

There may be some biblical fundamentlists who say there are Southern Baptists. But since the heads of all mainstream christian sects -- including the Baptists -- have publically said that the bible is not to be interpreted literally, not all Southern Baptists are fundamentalists.

But as far as Huckabee is concerned, I just can't imagine he is a knuckle-dragging sexist Neanderthal. I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and listen to his explaination.