logis on November 14, 2007 at 6:58 PM
This has nothing to do with “compromising our principles.” 80% of American voters disagree with Hillary Clinton’s position on immigration. If Republicans put up a candidate with a weak record on that issue, we will be giving her a gigantic electoral gift.

And why, exactly, is that a good idea?

It’s not a good idea IMO. What I have been observing over the past few months; whether it is a social conservative issue of importance, or an economic issue, or it’s the immigration issue or foreign policy; none of the candidates are a good fit in all. I’ve read here at HA, that a candidate that agrees with you 70% is your friend. If that is the case, then which principles within the 30% category, have to be compromised to elect a Republican president? Which issues are we willing to let slide?

Do you realize this man is a nanny stater carbon taxer? Did you hear his statements about raising taxes?

This man is not a republican. He is a religious liberal.

Zetterson on November 14, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Exactly.

Huck is just like John Edwards. He’s more honest than Edwards about his social conservatism. And Edwards is more honest about his economic liberalism.

Also vote Huckabee if you want college educated gardeners.

Didn’t MB4 tell us just the other day that he “doesn’t do rants”?

That was not a rant. I didn’t even put the shift into second gear. No need. Why use a hammer to swat a fly.

Splashman,

If I might steal a line from one of MB4’s favorite authors, “Elementary my dear Watson”.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 7:37 PM

You would choose the one vacuous one.

BTW on:

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 7:37 PM

Splashman on November 14, 2007 at 7:42 PM

Get a room!

Geebus Mitt, even when you b*&^hslap people you come off as an A-class nice guy. Killing with kindness.

Splashman,

If I might steal a line from one of MB4’s favorite authors, “Elementary my dear Watson”.

So many fools, so little time.
- Somebody or other

MB4, given that just about everyone here (including me) thinks you’re an idiot, there are two possibilities:

1) You’re an idiot.
2) Everyone else is an idiot.

Occam’s Razor, idiot.

Splashman on November 14, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Your thinking, such as there is of it, is very uncoordinated.

Well gosh, MB4 you just called Rudy a “draft dodger” next door. (Well gosh, I sure did and, well gosh, that is what he is.) That is a chicken hawk argument (Oh, well gosh, so now you have changed to “c#i#k#n h#w# argument” from, well gosh, “c#i#k#n h#w#k” itself. You are so transparent. BTW, why are you so afraid of that term and why do you seem to think that it is about the only term in all of creation that is VERBOTEN?) and you are making a fool AND a liar out of yourself when you continue to deny that you do it (No, I am not making a “fool AND a liar” out of myself, you are making a continuing a$$ out of yourself with all this putting words in my mouth, twisting my words and often just making things up AND with your continuing extreme UNNATURAL OBSESSION with me [You may want to seek professional help for that as it has now apparently reached a very advanced stage].).

There are plenty of people here at Hot Air who don’t like Rudy but I can’t think of a single one of them who tries to slime him, or other candidates, because they didn’t serve in the military. (I have not “slimed” him. He is a draft dodger. That is what he is. “He (Rudy) applied for a deferment but was rejected (first attempt to dodge the draft). In 1969, MacMahon (low friends in high places?) wrote a letter to Giuliani’s draft board, asking (using and abusing his influence) that he (Rudy) be reclassified as 2-A, civilian occupation deferment, because Giuliani, who was a law clerk for MacMahon, was an essential employee (It would be hard to
think of anything LESS essential. Even DOD employees seldom got 2-A’s. Even U.S. Army civilian employees at a “secret” Army testing facility in Utah didn’t get them.). The deferment was granted.(second attempt to dodge the draft successful)” Do you not even know what a draft dodger is? Do you not even have a clue? Do you know nothing about the late sixties? The only way for him to not be one would be if there was no such thing.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 6:39 PM

You are just wasting all too much of my time. Maybe you think that you can keep me occupied so that I will not find more truth to tell about Rudolfo or the Huckster. I think that from now on I will just respond, when I do respond, to you with a “canned” reply of “You have the reading comprehension of a pet rock and are much more annoying.”

The establishment of a consulate office in Little Rock financed by taxpayers is a deal breaker for me. There can be no valid reason for doing so, other than to provide support for his states illegal work force. I don’t believe another Hope, Arkansas president is in the best interest of this nation.
captivated_dem on November 14, 2007 at 3:35 PM

In other words: we have one leading Republican candidate who ran a sanctuary city, and one who ran a sanctuary state.

Quick question: what in the Hell is up with that?

This has nothing to do with “compromising our principles.” 80% of American voters disagree with Hillary Clinton’s position on immigration. If Republicans put up a candidate with a weak record on that issue, we will be giving her a gigantic electoral gift.

And why, exactly, is that a good idea?

1) You’re an idiot.
2) Everyone else is an idiot.

Occam’s Razor, idiot.

There are plenty of people here at Hot Air who don’t like Rudy but I can’t think of a single one of them who tries to slime him, or other candidates, because they didn’t serve in the military.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 6:39 PM

It’s not that he didn’t serve in the military, it’s that he pulled strings to get a questionable draft deferrment. Whether that’s considered “draft dodging” is a matter of opinion, but you can be certain that if he gets the nomination, the media will dog him on it almost daily.

Fact checker needed!

Wait, what week is this. Is this the week Mitt is for McCain-Feingold or against it?
Is this the week he is pro-amnesty or against it?…or is it the week that he is pro gun?
I don’t know how he keeps track of what week is which…

right2bright on November 14, 2007 at 6:05 PM

One never can tell- the best way is to stick your finger in the air, and whichever way the political winds are blowing at that particular moment, that’s the stance he’ll have. Once his campaign advisors give him permission to speak, of course.

There are plenty of people here at Hot Air who don’t like Rudy but I can’t think of a single one of them who tries to slime him, or other candidates, because they didn’t serve in the military.

I know the conversation has moved on, but regarding quoting Club for Growth as a counterpoint to Huck’s own campaign statement regarding the context of his initial and temporary tax increase plan, that’s pretty weak. It’s become painfully obvious that they have a huge and rather astonishing agenda to smear Huckabee as a candidate, and when a group shows such outrageous bias, their level of credibility descends into the toilet.

Jared White on November 14, 2007 at 5:02 PM

The Club for Growth isn’t some astroturf campaign group- they’re legit. But if you’d rather believe a political candidate’s campaign rhetoric over a respected, independent advocacy group, you go right ahead.

I mean, Huckster would never lie, now would he?

If you can refute the points they make, go right ahead- but right now you sound like a whiner who hasn’t considered the notion that perhaps they have good reason to question Huckabee’s fiscal policy.

MB4,

Spare me the innocent ingenue routine. The reason you become the topic is because of the nonsense that you habitually from questionable sources, along with your silly evasions.

No, the reason I become your topic is you have an unnatural obsession with me and you can not defend your candidates.

Did you or did you not say that you opposed giving foreign aid to Israel? You just said that you wanted to cut off funding. How did I misrepresent poor, misunderstood MB4?

I am not poor and most folks who have proper reading compression can understand me and don’t try to put words in my mouth.

I also doubt very much that Robert Spencer is ignorant of the connection between the NAZIS and Islamofascism (which you are) so I doubt he’d be thrilled to think you are representing your views as the same as his. Moreover, I doubt he routinely characterizes supporters of the war as chicken hawks.*

The subject there was Iraq, not “connection between the NAZIS and Islamofascism” and I did not say that Robert’s views where the same as mine, even on that. What I said, go back and try to read it again, was “I agree more with Paul, and Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald and Diana West, on Iraq than I do with Bush.” Find one comment of mine where I used the term “c#i#k#n h#w#s” and why are you so afraid of that term anyway?

*In so many words of course. You never actually use those words, you just make those arguments and then feign innocence.

No, you just assume and sometimes just out and out make things up.

Buy Danish on November 14, 2007 at 5:36 PM

You have the reading comprehension of a pet rock and are much more annoying.

As for the sales tax increases, I’d have to see what the circumstances were. Was another tax cut in exchange? For instance, in Georgia they are trying to eliminate property taxes but increase sales taxes to cover the lost revenue.

As a general rule, I favor some consumption taxes. My experience with “tax trades” in Maine has been that a new tax is created or an existing tax is raised, but the tax it was supposed to replace remains “temporarily.”

And it never goes away.

As for fees, if they’re for elective services, then that’s fine. But mandatory fee is just another word for tax.