You really have no idea what you’re talking about.

Bluster doesn’t make you less wrong. It just marginalizes you further.

Supposedly he had nearly three dozen wives…are you trying to insinuate he was a monogomous man without hordes of underage wives?

Of course you’re not.

I notice that you’re always trying to insult me in petty ways..I hope you notice that I do not do the same thing to you.

dozens of 14 year old brides.
SaintOlaf on July 30, 2008 at 11:51 AM

This is what drives me nuts about you…you are so wrong.
Show me Smiths “dozens” of 14 year old brides…lying is a sin, and false accusations is a sin, are you ready to accept that? Or do you think you are above the God’s law…

The dems would love nothing more than for Mccain to pick Romney as VP candidate.

Then they could air

…video of the endless sniping between Mitt & J-Mac.

SaintOlaf on July 30, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

Then they could air documentary after documentary about the mormons long history of racism..how they believe blacks are cursed with black skin because of a curse the mormon gods have placed on them..and how they forbid blacks from joining their religion and forbid them from becoming priests, and the clip of how romney cried when they allowed blacks to join their religion etc. etc….not to mention Joseph Smith’s long history of child molestation and inbreeding with his dozens of 14 year old brides.

By the end of the MSM campaign against him…the majority of America will believe that all republicans are greedy racist billionaires.

He has so many negatives he is not even worth discussing as a candidate.

If Mccain picks him…he will lose. It’s pretty simple.

NEXT.

McCain needs whoever will be a conservative bulwark in order to get elected. If McCain determines Romney’s his VP, then so be it.

Huckabee refutes the experience that converted Saul of Tarsus to become Paul. Huckabee plays Saul the assassin and refuses to fall off his horse and accept the epiphany God holds in store. Pride goeth before the fall. Get it over with, Huckabee, so you can measure up to your own talents to actually bless instead of curse America. Christians repudiate Saul but love Paul. Besides, where is Huckabee’s attack on Obama’s “Christian” “conversion”. If Huckabee has to be a hate monger throughout eternity, at least knaw on Obama’s Marxist bones and quit being such a Republican cannibal.

AND ZOMG!!! SHE GAVE STATE BENEFITS TO SAME-SEX PARTNERS OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS!!!
Gimme a break. Palin opposes same-sex “marriage” and supported the Constitutional ban passed in her State. I hardly see how following a Court order is a “cheap trick”. An Executive official must follow the law, not be an advocate who usurps the other branches of Government.
Damian G. on July 29, 2008 at 4:12 PM

A court cannot issue an order to prevent a governor of a state from signing a bill passed by a legislature. Not even in Alaska. A court can rule whether a bill signed is unconstitutional and strike it down but it cannot stop a governor from signing a bill. Palin explained she veto’d the bill because she was advised the bill would not stand constitutional test. A law does not receive constitutional test until it is signed into law, and challenged.

That is why I call it a cheap trick.

She was fully empowered to sign it. There are no good explanations for her actions

1. She wanted to save the citizens of Alaska the cost of a judicial review so she prevented a review of that law

2. She did not understand she had a right to sign the bill and was tricked by the attorney general

3. She was devious and wanted the bill veto’d but did not want to be seen supporting gay benefits so she pretended she was being forced to veto

4. She couldn’t admit to herself she supported the bill so she told herself it was better to veto it anyway since she just knew the judges wouldn’t allow it to stand

5. she regards the constitution of her state and the nation like putty to be molded for the good of the people

6. She is dumb as a brick

Palin effectively prevented the final examination of the law by the courts on the grounds it would not survive examination by the courts.

Palin was not required by the law to veto the bill. She was empowered by the law to sign, or veto the bill as she chose.

This is a blot on her record to any conservative

Palin pre-empted judicial review. This is a bad bad decision for an executive and sufficient reason for me to not want her as chief executive

Ummmm, Feminists for Life is a pro-woman, pro-life organisation. Their goal is to show that abortion hurts women. They are the anti-NOW. That, my friend, is what we call an “asset”.

It is an asset with groups that are not suspicious of feminists. The reason the group is called Feminists for Life is to identify themselves foremost as feminists. That is a big leap in conservative appeal and not an asset with groups that distrust persons who find a need to identify themselves as feminists.

There is a large conservative bloc that considers Feminism an extemist agenda and not primarily for being pro abortion but for being matriarchical and anti family

AND ZOMG!!! SHE GAVE STATE BENEFITS TO SAME-SEX PARTNERS OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS!!!

Gimme a break. Palin opposes same-sex “marriage” and supported the Constitutional ban passed in her State. I hardly see how following a Court order is a “cheap trick”. An Executive official must follow the law, not be an advocate who usurps the other branches of Government.

Damian G. on July 29, 2008 at 4:12 PM

A court cannot issue an order to prevent a governor of a state from signing a bill passed by a legislature. Not even in Alaska. A court can rule whether a bill signed is unconstitutional and strike it down but it cannot stop a governor from signing a bill. Palin explained she signed the bill because she was advised the bill would not stand constitutional test. A law does not receive constitutional test until it is signed into law, and challenged.

That is why I call it a cheap trick. She was fully empowered to sign it. There are no good explanations for her actions

1. She wanted to save the citizens of Alaska the cost of a judicial review so she prevented a review of that law

2. She did not understand she had a right to sign the bill and was tricked by the attorney general

3. She was devious and wanted the bill passed but did not want to be seen supporting it so she pretended she was being forced to veto

4. She couldn’t admit to herself she supported the bill so she told herself it was better to veto it anyway since she just knew the judges wouldn’t allow it to stand

5. she regards the constitution of her state and the nation like putty to be molded for the good of the people

6. She is dumb as a brick

Palin effectively prevented the final examination of the law by the courts on the grounds it would not survive examination by the courts.

Palin was not required by the law to veto the bill. She was empowered by the law to sign, or veto the bill as she chose.

This is a blot on her record to any conservative

Palin pre-empted judicial review. This is a bad bad decision for an executive and sufficient reason for me to not want her as chief executive.

So – they would vote for Obama instead? I mean, we’re all making compromises with McCain, they should too.

matd on July 29, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Well said. I agree with other comments here, also, and as a Christian, the complaints about Romney and his Mormon denomination/theology is the political equivalent of sinking the boat because you’re hungry.

Huckabigot is such a POS I can’t even stand it. Only a complete egomaniac would ever attack another man like this just to keep himself “higher” in the political pecking order.

davenp35 on July 29, 2008 at 1:40 PM

Oh to only see the look on Huckabee’s face when Jesus tells him he can’t come in.

Priceless!

revolution, rule number one, and a very polite one, in e-communication, is to never, ever, use all caps.

Entelechy on July 29, 2008 at 1:36 PM

YES, AS IT, WELL, IT, IT, IT SHOWS A LACK OF GOOD BREEDING.

All the religious hypocrisies aside, and the fact that Mr. Romney is a good man, McCain needs to get a woman on the ticket, and fast, even if it’s Hillary.

Entelechy,

It’s called Thorizine, pup. Might want to pick up a bottle.

revolution on July 29, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Actually I believe that you probably mean Thorazine. It does have a calming effect, pup, sometime so much so that it causes one to not pay much attention to ones spelling. Always be careful about how much you take within a 24 hour period.

Politically, there is no monolithic Mormon “identity.

as demonstrated by the Republican primaries in Utah.

For clarity: I’m evangelical, and his choice of religion gives me pause. But I was very disheartened as well by the overwhelming support of Huckabee within my caste. We can (and have before) go round and round about the merits of discounting an otherwise fairly good candidate based on his profession of faith, but I think the larger reality is that evangelicals will likely stay away from him in large enough numbers to seriously hurt McCain.

Evangelicals already don’t particularly get excited about McCain; his ticket doesn’t need two strikes.

Friends?

Yep. Thanks for the argument.

I think the word we were both searching for was “prejudice” which has the usual negative liberal connotations but I am totally comfortable with using it myself.

Such a fine and admirable example that presents to the foes we face, and to the embattled masses we hope to lure into the fresh air of Civilization.

Shiny.

Perhaps my problem is the choice of words.

I’m not a big fan of the word “bigot,” because it is an imprecise and emotionally-charged term. What I mean when I say it and what it means when you hear it could be wildly different.

I don’t equate “bigotry” with “hatred” or with “knuckle-dragging” or “malicious”. But I just checked a couple of dictionaries, where “bigot” and “hate” seem to go together. So I’m gonna drop the word and back away slowly.

I’m not sure which word or phrase best fits what I’m trying to say. Thread’s beat to death already, so maybe I’ll stop trying for now.

But, as you say, the secret ballot lets us throw the lever for whomever we will, for whatever reasons we choose, including the superficial. (if it’s a close call, I might well vote for the person who would look best on the money a hundred years from now. I mean, who wants to buy a Happy Meal with a Kucinich?)

Friends?