I CONVERT! All hail Joseph Smith! Kidding. As readers know, I have my disagreements with Mormon theology, but I thought Mitt Romney delivered one of the best treatments on the role of faith and public office ever delivered by a……

That’s your real intent. Right?
Oh, god, thyself.
This is the last thread of mine that you attempt to hijack with your incessant shrieking about denigrating Christians. I just linked approvingly to a guy who is himself a proud evangelical Christian.

Next time you interrupt one of these threads, you’re banned. If you don’t like the posts, don’t read them.

You’re a Christian-baiting, coward. And what you are now realizing, is that I’m calling you out on it. Your specific intent is to engender anti-Christian commentary, or conflict between Christians themselves. Catholics vs. Protestants. Christians vs. Jews. Protestants and Catholics vs. Mormons. It’s your sock-puppet routine. “I’m not saying anything bad about religion! They are!” But, the sock-puppet routine is shallow, and so are you.

Your threat to ban me is an indictment of your own conduct on this board. I’m satisfied that your cowardly and childlike conduct, and your hatred for Christianity, has now been made so manifest … that you now threaten to ban me.

Ban away – Pravda. My work is done.

So Huckabee thinks that you should make it illegal. Most politicians take the hypocritical stance of taxing it to provide benefits.

You can count Huckabee in on taxing it to provide benefits. He signed a cigarette tax hike while governor of Arkansas.

I am glad to see anyone not ashamed to pray publically in the name of Jesus.

However ‘by his fruits ye will know him’

He is to me one more control freak Rhino who follows the party line on breaking any and all laws to facilitate illegal immigration if it comes from Mexico, not Haiti.

To paraphrase: what is good for American business is good for the USA, the long term be damned

What is it about chicken processing that makes politicians forget to love their country?

He is waving the Jesus flag high. I do not doubt his love for Jesus. I do doubt his love for the American worker who is his neighbor

Sounds like Jimmah Carter is your man.

peski on November 28, 2007 at 4:34 PM

Peski! Thats it! You have nailed it. The closest possible political equivalent to Mike Huckabee IS Jimmy Carter! You absolutely freeking nailed it!

What a knockout punch of a line that would be in the upcoming debate. Make a comment about how when Mike Huckabee wakes up in the morning and looks at himself in the mirror the reflected image is Jimmy Carter politically reborn.

Zetterson on November 28, 2007 at 4:49 PM

Fred? [looking right at Huckabee]: I knew Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter was not a friend of mine, and you are a Jimmy Carter.

You’re my hero. I love you. Let’s hug.

Professor Blather on November 28, 2007 at 7:20 PM

How about we just have a beer and skip the hugging stuff…

I am really getting sick and damn tired of the state constantly telling me what I can and cant do. I am an honest hard working tax paying citizen who just wishes that the nanny state socialists would kindly go [censored] themselves.

Completely agree. The ‘good’ things legislatively, if you will allow that term, almost always limit what you can do to someone else. The legislative movements to limit what you can do to/for yourself are irritating in the extreme. They are, categorically I’d say, an affront to liberty. Huck doesn’t not fall in the mold of a TR, though I’d wager he thinks he does…Slu said it very well, but skimming I can’t find the quote that I was thinking.

Doriangrey,

I wrote a short blog post that was inspired by your comment earlier this afternoon.

terryannonline on November 28, 2007 at 7:21 PM

Went to your site and read the post, very nice.

doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Doriangrey,

I wrote a short blog post that was inspired by your comment earlier this afternoon.

I used to ride a motorcycle and wore a helmet when traveling any substantial distance, but when the state instituted mandatory helmet laws it pissed me off no end.

Likewise I drive a corvette, and would never even consider driving without a seatbelt, but still seatbelt laws piss me off.

I smoke, my mom has been smoking since she was in her early 20’s, she’s now in her mid 70’s. I should probably stop, but the idea of the state telling me I have to, well you can probably tell it pisses me off.

I am really getting sick and damn tired of the state constantly telling me what I can and cant do. I am an honest hard working tax paying citizen who just wishes that the nanny state socialists would kindly go [censored] themselves.

doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 7:08 PM

You’re my hero. I love you. Let’s hug.

Note: This has already been posted at Ace of Spades and linked at Hot Air, so I figure I’d put it here just for kicks. If you want some good discussion, though, I’d recommend one of those sites. According to……

Some of the things that have impressed me by Duncan Hunter is that he has been an elected member of Congress since 1980. He has been a ranking GOP member of the House Armed Services Committee for 26 years overseeing military policy, and a $532 Billion dollar budget. What governor or mayor has sat on those kinds of budget committees, and railed against those that would deprive our military of needed and necessary equipment? For added bonuses, he is pro-life and against embryonic stem-cell research (which may be a mute point in light of recent research). He voted against NAFTA, is against the Law of the Sea Treaty and wants to shame the president into granting a pardon to Ramos and Compean. Duncan would also continue strong support of the only democracy in the Middle East: Israel (unlike the shananigans going on at Annapolis a couple of days ago).

As far as China and their dependence on the U.S….yes, they are to some degree. We are by no means their only customers. Especially, for their military exports. With other alliances they are forming throughout the world there will come a time when they feel strong enough to go after Taiwan. If they are allowed to do so, all bets are off. China wants authority over and control of the entire Pacific. So, we have a case of every time you buy a product from China, just like every time you fill your gas tank with Arab oil – our dollar is weakened.

Right. The distinction I would make is that the BoR secures your freedoms from use of the Constitution (or any other tool) to take additional ones away. The gov by necessity exists from the willful surrender of personal freedoms. A bit of an esoteric point perhaps, but since you’ll follow it, I’ll make it. The question is where do you draw the line. Before Huck is the right answer, right?:)

Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 6:54 PM

I used to ride a motorcycle and wore a helmet when traveling any substantial distance, but when the state instituted mandatory helmet laws it pissed me off no end.

Likewise I drive a corvette, and would never even consider driving without a seatbelt, but still seatbelt laws piss me off.

I smoke, my mom has been smoking since she was in her early 20’s, she’s now in her mid 70’s. I should probably stop, but the idea of the state telling me I have to, well you can probably tell it pisses me off.

I am really getting sick and damn tired of the state constantly telling me what I can and cant do. I am an honest hard working tax paying citizen who just wishes that the nanny state socialists would kindly go [censored] themselves.

No more like James Chapter 2.

In application you will not get an argument from me. In 5.11 I find ‘very pitiful, and of tender mercy.” Thought maybe you had a different word there.

And look at the trouble it has gotten us into.

Heh. Is the trouble that we are concerned about Huck passing a smoking ban? I’d say the gains (the axe to slavery, TR’s labor reforms, etc, etc, etc) might outweigh the trouble. As to the original intentions, Adams thought government should bring out the best in people, and Jefferson sought to foster it (I refer specifically to education), but I think they would take umbrage with Huck that the place for that is Federal gov.

Yea, but we are talking about nearly diametrically opposed differences. Bill or rights and the amendments to the constitution itself.

Right. The distinction I would make is that the BoR secures your freedoms from use of the Constitution (or any other tool) to take additional ones away. The gov by necessity exists from the willful surrender of personal freedoms. A bit of an esoteric point perhaps, but since you’ll follow it, I’ll make it. The question is where do you draw the line. Before Huck is the right answer, right?:)

There is a profound difference between pity and compassion, pity does nothing compassion drive the individual feeling it to do something positive for the object of their compassion.

James 5:11?

No more like James Chapter 2.

It is quite arguable that the precedent set by Teddy is one of the largest bricks in the wall of totalitarianism that is slowly but surely eating away at the fabric of American society today.

Indeed it is. But I won’t make that argument tonight, I just was pointing out that we have a history legislating morality.

And look at the trouble it has gotten us into.

As for Teddy, times were different and people were different. Once upon a time this nations law makers believe that as little intrusion into the lives of it’s citizens was the best way to secure the fundamental promises guaranteed in the constitution.

Yeah, times are different, and Sean Penn told me that people are different, as we have evolved past war. Just curious, by promises are you referring to the Bill of Rights?

Anyway, I didn’t mean to side-track your conversation, just wanted to toss that in for context.

Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 6:24 PM

Yea, but we are talking about nearly diametrically opposed differences. Bill or rights and the amendments to the constitution itself.

JellyToast on November 28, 2007 at 6:29 PM

What we really need is The Gipper. Sigh.

There is a profound difference between pity and compassion, pity does nothing compassion drive the individual feeling it to do something positive for the object of their compassion.

James 5:11?

It is quite arguable that the precedent set by Teddy is one of the largest bricks in the wall of totalitarianism that is slowly but surely eating away at the fabric of American society today.

Indeed it is. But I won’t make that argument tonight, I just was pointing out that we have a history legislating morality.

As for Teddy, times were different and people were different. Once upon a time this nations law makers believe that as little intrusion into the lives of it’s citizens was the best way to secure the fundamental promises guaranteed in the constitution.

Yeah, times are different, and Sean Penn told me that people are different, as we have evolved past war. Just curious, by promises are you referring to the Bill of Rights?

Anyway, I didn’t mean to side-track your conversation, just wanted to toss that in for context.

It is quite arguable that the precedent set by Teddy is one of the largest bricks in the wall of totalitarianism that is slowly but surely eating away at the fabric of American society today.

I do not wish to live in a totalitarian nanny state and it is the actions that seemed quite benevolent at the time of President Roosevelt, as beloved he may have been that have brought this closer to a reality in our time than could have ever been imagined by President Roosevelt.

doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Nailed it.

Grover Cleveland in the 1880’s:

Cleveland vigorously pursued a policy barring special favors to any economic group. Vetoing a bill to appropriate $10,000 to distribute seed grain among drought-stricken farmers in Texas, he wrote: “Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . . “

We’ve come a long way baby.

Hollowpoint on November 28, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Thanks for the link, HP. You’re right, it’s still not clear.

“Mitt Romney supports a human life amendment when it is possible and what he is saying is that it is not possible right now but what is possible is reversing Roe vs Wade.”