Then Huck needs to get out of politics. The laws of this law demand a separation of church and state.

csdeven on November 8, 2008 at 7:13 AM

Not true. This is the basis for so many arguments and it’s a myth. There is no reason why we shouldn’t elect our political leaders based on their religious conviction. The first 5 books of the Bible are called “the Law” (Matthew 7:12; Luke 24:27;44) and they just so happen to be the foundation of the American legal system. In Genesis 9:6 God commissioned human government to carry out those laws. Government was not formed to change God’s laws but rather to enforce them. In 1846 the South Carolina Supreme Court declared: “Christianity is a part of the common law of the land, with liberty of conscience to all. It has always been so recognized… it is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed; it is their basis. Remove this and they would fall.” In 1892 the United States Supreme Court ruled — “Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” Once again the Supreme Court in 1952 declared: “We are a religious people whose institutions all presuppose a Supreme Being …” So, you can deny it csdeven, but these quotations are representative of many which support the facts that this is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic — based entirely upon Christian principles -– with no separation of church and state. American government and legal system were formed and based on God’s law and the Bible.

Mike dragged his Christian faith into the campaign as a tool to garner votes AND to create distrust for Romney.

So you’re saying that Mike dragged his Christian faith into the race as a tool? Really, that’s so unfair. He was Governor of Arkansas for 10 years and acted no different in office there. I guess I’m using my faith as a tool too, huh? I mean, it’s my life so I guess I’m just faking it. I must not really believe Jesus Christ when He said to follow Him. I guess I don’t believe that there is a real heaven and a literal hell where people will go to after they die. I don’t know what planet you’re living on csdeven, but Christians shouldn’t be shy about their faith. The fact that so many Christian politicians are silent about the Jesus Christ is the problem — that’s the problem! To me, your accusations are just not something a true Christian would say or think.

Scripture says: Render that unto Caesar etc….

This tells us that Christians should pay legitimate taxes to the government. It says nothing about seperation of church and state. And by the way, it’s primarily non-believers, atheists, humanists, evolutionist, who use the separation argument. These are the same folks who want nothing to do with God and are trying everything to get rid of Him. Think about that long and hard before you decide which side you’re going to fight for.

It demeans Christians for Huck to do such a thing.

Speak for yourself.

It is hypocritical and he is not being a good example for those he would hope would turn to Christ.

Please don’t lecture us about being hypocritical or about being a good example for those we hope to turn to Christ. Jesus Himself said, “Beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15), yet time and time again, you defend that con man Joseph Smith. It is interesting to watch how people like you will spend much time and effort scrutinizing somebody like Mike Huckabee and accuse him of being a phony Christian, yet won’t spend 2 seconds scrutinizing how stupid it is to believe Joey Smith put a magic rock into a hat, put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and then proceeded to write the sequel to the Holy Bible! YES, folks. They truly strain at a gnat and swallow a camel (Matthew 23:24).

apacalyps on November 7, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Then Huck needs to get out of politics. The laws of this law demand a separation of church and state. Mike dragged his Christian faith into the campaign as a tool to garner votes AND to create distrust for Romney.

Scripture says: Render that unto Caesar etc….

It demeans Christians for Huck to do such a thing. It is hypocritical and he is not being a good example for those he would hope would turn to Christ.

I’m talking about apologetics, meaning that I defend Christianity.

Marine_Bio on November 7, 2008 at 9:39 PM

I knew that, Bio (smiles). When I said, “Apologetics… who’s apologizing? I’m not apologizing for nothing!” I was only having fun with the term, apologetics. I think it’s a poor word they came up with to describe the defense of Christian doctrine. I believe, without apology, that God made the world about 6,000 years ago; 4,400 years ago there was a Flood that destroyed the world; 2,000 years ago Jesus came, died on the cross, and here we are today. Here we are today, waiting for the Lord to come back in about 5 minutes. I hope that makes sense.

On the other subjects like Romney, Mormonism, and the states making the call on abortion, not the federal government. Well, we can agree to disagree. I see where you’re coming from and you explain yourself nicely, but, uh, I just see it differently. So maybe we can get into this another time. I’ll try to convince you another day. What I wanna say though before finishing is that based on what I’ve read I think we’re on the same side overall. I mean, it sounds to me like you love the Lord, and if that’s true and you’re saved on your way to heaven, well, then, you’re a brother in Christ, and we gotta work together. Like my good friend Huckabee said, “When we become believers, it’s as if we have signed up to be part of God’s Army, to be soldiers for Christ.” The way I see it Bio, these are the last days, and there’s still so much we’ve yet to do! United we stand, divided we fall. It can’t be any clearer than that. Have a good day/night!

apacalyps on November 7, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Hey, I know you mean well, but you have to slow down on the emotional response in this kind of format. There are some corrections needed.

Except for my Christian apologetic stances, my thoughts are generally more in the academic realm.

As Christians, we have nothing to apologize for.

I’m talking about apologetics, meaning that I defend Christianity. When engaged in that endeavor, I have more fervor, because I came to faith from a staunchly atheistic background, fully embracing evolution as a flawed theory. That little academically honest acknowledgment is what saved my hide, and many in science don’t have it, but I digress.

Almost all other discussion is much more academically disconnected. Think of it like the discussion is approached as if picking up a rock, looking at it and telling someone about it. Not exactly the kind of thought process that comes naturally to everyone, but it can make this kind of format a challenge. Picture Spock talking to Dr. McCoy if you will. Its a good metaphor for what has gone on between our posts.

Now, about Mitt, you may be right, but your argument is weak. He is a savvy politician and when in a heavily democratic state, you will need to make concessions. That will create the appearance of inconsistency no matter which way you turn that around. Remember he was elected as a Republican in MA, which is the most bizarre state in its politics, and the electorate is FAR to the left of Arkansas’ electorate. It makes a difference.

Regardless of this, my overall point is that America is too prejudiced for him to be elected to the presidency. Now again I remind you that this is from an academic standpoint. (i.e. your point is valid about god not necessarily being the same as the God of the Bible, and as a christian you should be duly concerned, but that is completely irrelevant to what I’m saying.) He would never get to the point of where John McCain was, because of prejudice.

And by the way, with this one..

(And I do believe that the Federal Government should not be involved in abortion decisions, that should be left up to the individual states. It isn’t right for it to be going on at all, but that should still be up to the states.)

I don’t understand why somebody would give states the right to have abortion laws if they want. If abortion is murder, why give anyone the option to murder?

Look at it again thinking academically, and not emotively. I’m not saying that the right should be given to the states. The states should be making the call, not the federal government.

It makes it much more appropriate in the framework of our constitution, as in powers not enumerated in the document belong to the states….:) It also works much more to the end goal of working this abomination out of our country. Local politics, not federal, are much more aware of community grass roots work. Also keeps the stupid folks like planned parenthood spread more thinly and without backing from fruit loops in the US Congress.

Cheers.

So, Obama won. Let’s leave our predictions of the future–about his presidency and our future–behind. There’s work to be done.
The GOP got their asses handed to them because they showed a lack of leadership and broke their promises. Obam…

I took it to mean that he was THE authentic Christian and the other candidates were not. It simply has no place in a campaign.

csdeven on November 7, 2008 at 10:22 AM

No, csdeven. That’s not what Mike meant. He didn’t mean he was THE authentic Christian. That’s the way the lying bolshevick media spun it. I would have spoken out had he meant that. Remember, my allegiance is to the good Lord Jesus Christ, not Mike Huckabee. I support Mike Huckabee because I believe he is a decent man, and a fine leader, who loves Jesus, and wants to see His will done on earth as it is done in heaven (Matthew 6:10). But, as soon as Mike deviates from the Truth, I would not support him.

apacalyps, I’m probably not a familiar entity to you, I joined during the primary season open registration, and haven’t posted that regularly.

Marine_Bio on November 7, 2008 at 6:31 AM

Nice to have you here.

Except for my Christian apologetic stances, my thoughts are generally more in the academic realm.

As Christians, we have nothing to apologize for.

I’m a conservative Christian biologist, which makes me a really confusing entity to those who hold secular beliefs, and a bit more on the academic in my approaches than most Christians are used to dealing with.

A Christian biologist, huh? Amen. Most branches of science were developed by Bible-believing Christians. Law of gravity – Isaac Newton. Scientific Method – Francis Bacon. Physical Astronomy – Johann Kepler. The list goes on. There is no conflict between science and the Bible.

So I’ll try this again, just for clarity. I don’t have a problem with Huck, and am nowhere near as willing charge him as being too liberal as some who suffer from Huckabee Derangement Syndrome. I’m not a HDS sufferer,

I am so glad you are not an HDS sufferer.

I voted for him in the primary because Romney had just dropped out when VA voted, and can fully acknowledge that in many ways he is a very admirable person, and would have made a first rate president. He’s just more liberal than I would like, as evidenced by his taxation policies and pardons in a relatively conservative state, Arkansas.

Huckabee vs Romney Over Clemency.

I will also easily concede that Zo may be correct in his argument that Huckabee would have been able to sell the platform far better than McCain or any of the other candidates. McCain happened because of Dems crossing over to vote for him as the “acceptable conservative”. You see how well that worked out for us.

Huckabee would have destroyed Barack Hussein Obama in the debates. And with Conservatives behind him, he would be President right now.

Now, about Romney, is he a recent convert or was he a stealth conservative in MA?

Romney is a recent convert. He is not a true conservative and his record proves it. You look at the primaries, Huckabee was more than patient with this slimy excuse for a Republican until he started hammering him with misleading attack ads. Alot of us couldn’t believe it when this guy was tearing down a life-long committed pro-life conservatives like Huckabee. Romney is not pro-life and anyone who believes him is deluding themselves. Even on the guns issue, Romney changed his positions in order to run for President. Here’s Mitt supporting gun control in Massachusetts. In another video I can’t post (there seems to be a limit we can post at HA before the filters kick in) Mitt’s flailing, dodging, and then supporting automatic weapon bans. Huckabee, on the other hand, was the first Governor in the country to have a concealed handgun license. He believes Second Amendment rights belong to individuals, not cities or states. He opposes gun control based on geography. Mitt has proven he is NOT committed to protecting our 2nd Amendment rights. The choice is clear. There is no better candidate on the 2nd Amendment and the protection of life than Governor Huckabee. And these are just a couple examples where Mitt has flip-flopped. We’ve only looked at two. We haven’t looked at the others. We haven’t looked at what Romney did to progress the GLBT agenda in MA.

Am I happy about his abortion stance while in office? Absolutely not, but that’s part of why I don’t live in MA. (And I do believe that the Federal Government should not be involved in abortion decisions, that should be left up to the individual states. It isn’t right for it to be going on at all, but that should still be up to the states.)

I don’t understand why somebody would give states the right to have abortion laws if they want. If abortion is murder, why give anyone the option to murder?

Now, that being said, had Romney been chosen as the candidate, it would have been a bloodbath. America is too prejudiced towards Mormons to put one in the top office.

On this issue of Mormonism, forget about prejiduce. People can believe whatever they want, okay. Believe whatever you want! Here’s the concern. Just because somebody says the word “god” does not mean they are talking about the same person that is the God of the Bible. And if you really believe God exists and you pray He will bless your nation, then you better make sure you are praying to the right ONE, otherwise, instead of a blessing you may get a curse. When you have God wrong, you have everything wrong. So, people are rightly concerned. Thank you.

There are no republican leaders. NONE. It will be a long 4 years ahead. We must rebuild from scratch. The midterms in 2010 are going to be our chance to get some new blood in there. We had better start now.

Remember, all politics is local. Start there and start now. Don’t wait. If we can’t get exceptional Republicans to run for office we won’t win anymore. McCain proves a left leaning republican can’t be elected. We need to get back to our roots. We need someone who is a little like Reagan. A person who can communicate a vision for America. When we find that person we’ll win the whitehouse back.

They just didn’t do enough… nobody was out there “making the case” (following the lead they were getting from the White House).

The Dems have been successful in labeling republicans as big business rich guys. Congress bolstered that image by spending like drunken sailors and Bush never vetoed any of it.

Mc Cain did an extremely poor job of explaining any of this on the debates. He gave Obama a pass on the 95% of people get tax cuts issue during all three debates.

Being a successful salesperson is easy. Find the customers needs, overcome objections, know your competitors product, and follow through. Of course good delivery helps but if you don’t follow through you will lose the customer. it doesn’t take a rocket scientist.

The abortion restriction initiatives lost. It seems unlikely that states would outlaw abortion from the point of conception, even if Roe could be overturned. To the extent that a pro life position is a litmus test for a GOP candidate, some good candidates may be screened out based on a policy position that can’t practically be implemented.
Some of the social conservative positions work against GOP candidates in the North East, where now the party has no congressmen from New England.

Totally agree. And if you can’t restrict abortion in South Dakota is pretty clear you cannot do it anywhere. Instead nobody is worryed about the loses in North West, South West (New Mexico) and mountain west (Nevada and Colorado). Maybe abortion shouldn’t be the litmus test for republicans in certain states.

kangjie on November 7, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Its the most admirable goal and I wish it was that simple.

Some of them are going to be more easily sent to Jail than voted out. (i.e.Schumer)

Most of them come from a state with electorate that is so stuck on stupid they vote for anyone with a D, as long as they aren’t a complete idiot. (i.e. Mikulski.)

It is very frustrating. I focus on Mikulski because I actually detest the woman. When I lived in MD, I was on a crusade to get Mikulski out of office. It is unbelievable how entrenched she is.

If that is the goal in these states, based on my experience in MD, I’m convinced that the only way is to find a candidate that is so stunning it is attractive to those who sit on the fence, but vote for the same person because they “aren’t that bad”.

Case in point of why it has to be that way…The 2002 MD governor’s race.

The then LT Gov Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was running against Bob Ehrlich and Michael Steele. Ehrilich won for one term, because Townsend is so stupid that the only way she was ever elected was by adding the Kennedy back into her name. (Ran in late 80s for congress as townsend and failed miserably. Then added Kennedy back in and BINGO she was elected.)

The very next election, the stupid, extremely corrupt mayor of Baltimore ran, and BINGO, now he’s Governor.

Ehrlich is a good man, who did a lot for the state. Did not matter, because he’s not a “rockstar”.

I’m so glad I moved out of that state in 2004.

For all who want to dump social conservatism in order to attract more moderates, let me remind you that gay marriage and affirmative action initiatives lost in every state they were raised and they were raised in many states.

Angry Dumbo on November 7, 2008 at 9:59 AM

The abortion restriction initiatives lost. It seems unlikely that states would outlaw abortion from the point of conception, even if Roe could be overturned. To the extent that a pro life position is a litmus test for a GOP candidate, some good candidates may be screened out based on a policy position that can’t practically be implemented.

Some of the social conservative positions work against GOP candidates in the North East, where now the party has no congressmen from New England.

Go sign up and get some other HAer to go over there
Start thread etc

Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Main article: United States Senate election in Arkansas, 2010
Incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln was reelected with 56% of the vote in 2004, a year when President George W. Bush carried the state easily and GOP candidates nationwide won in what was termed as a GOP year. Lincoln is popular in Arkansas and is well known. Former Governor Mike Huckabee, who was a 2008 presidential candidate, may run, since he remains a relatively well-liked figure. Regardless of Huckabee’s position, Arkansas has elected only one Republican Senator since Reconstruction, who was defeated in a GOP landslide year of 2002.

[edit] Barbara Boxer of California
Main article: United States Senate election in California, 2010
The chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, California Democrat Barbara Boxer announced in February 2007 that she will seek a fourth term in 2010.[6]

Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger may seek the seat, as he would be ineligible to run again in the Gubernatorial race due to term limits.[6]

[edit] Ken Salazar of Colorado
Main article: United States Senate election in Colorado, 2010
Ken Salazar has been mentioned as a possible cabinet appointment by Barack Obama, but downplayed such speculation before the 2008 election.[7]

[edit] Daniel Inouye of Hawaii
Main article: United States Senate election in Hawaii, 2010
Veteran Democrat Daniel Inouye will complete his eighth term in the Senate in 2010, at age 86. He was reelected in 2004 with 76% of the vote.[8]

[edit] Barack Obama of Illinois
Main article: United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010
Governor Rod Blagojevich will appoint a person to replace Obama in the US Senate due to Obama’s status as President-elect of the United States.

[edit] Evan Bayh of Indiana
Main article: United States Senate election in Indiana, 2010
Evan Bayh, a former two-term Governor of Indiana, is now in his second Senate term. He won reelection with 62% of the vote in 2004.[9]

[edit] Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
Main article: United States Senate election in Maryland, 2010
Democrat Barbara Mikulski will be 73 in November 2010. Mikulski has often been elected by large margins.

[edit] Harry Reid of Nevada
Main article: United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will seek a fifth term. In 2004, he was reelected with 61% of the vote.[8]

[edit] Chuck Schumer of New York
Main article: United States Senate election in New York, 2010
Chuck Schumer, current chairman of the DSCC

So anyways, I don’t think you should be offended by that the same way the lying Media was. Thank you.

apacalyps on November 7, 2008 at 1:38 AM

I took it to mean that he was THE authentic Christian and the other candidates were not. It simply has no place in a campaign.

The Bush/Clinton alignment always stank.
The McCain/Clinton alignment always stank.
The Bush/McCain alignment really stinks.

Plain and simple, McCain was not comfortable pushing social conservative issues. Fine. He can be the mythical social liberal fiscal conservative, but Republicans who want to win need to tap popular conservative issues. Social conservatism won and social liberals lost this past election.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slo

As Rush said, conservatism didn’t lose on Tuesday, it was not on the ballot.

What happened to “the self evident truth that all men are created equal”? liberals certainly don’t believe in that anymore. “diversity” is the wedge they use to divide and conquer.

neuquenguy on November 7, 2008 at 8:02 AM

Tech is interesting because it tends to be very diverse–to the point where English language skills among teammates can be a challenge. But if you manage on merit, as it sounds like you did, you get to see diverse groups work effectively and harmoniously. However, where diversity is mandated, especially in leadership positions, productivity can really suffer.