Mike Huckabee scares the piss out of me.

[Lago_AM3P]

I know in earlier threads I was making light of the fact that he was splitting the GOP establishment, but seriously, someone needs to pull the plug on this shit right now.

This guy is scary as hell. Has no idea of the separation of church and state and actively mocks it in his campaign. Also vocally supports a policy to shove all of the Palestinians into their home country.

Please, god, don't let him win the primary. If he does, don't let him win the general. If he does, someone assassinate him.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1200283658[/unixtime]] Also vocally supports a policy to shove all of the Palestinians into their home country.

What home country, Israel? I can get behind that, except I don't think Huckabee means that he supports giving Israel back to the palestinians.

[Lago_AM3P]

Sorry. That should be 'adjacent Arab territories'.

Massive MSM-induced Freudian slip. Sorry!

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Yeah. Huckabee's scary. He has Ronald Reagan's mastery of the media (including YouTube), but he's more of an evangelical than Reagan was. I soured on him when he answered a question about Iraq policy by saying that Congress and the Democrats had no right to criticize the war "because we have to be one nation, under God." Yes, you read that right. The man brings God into every single policy discussion, no matter how far removed from religious matters.

[Lago_AM3P]

I think our only hope at this point is that Huckabee splits the GOP and Bush II will go down in history as the anti-Reagan.

I mean, we'll still have the massive corruption and pork spending and corporate welfare that is KILLING THE UNITED STATES, but at least there will be less religious insanity.

[PhoneLobster]

You do realize that the rest of the Republican contenders are pretty shocking as well.

I mean the only main difference is how much and why they support eternal senseless war with, well, various random countries some of which may not yet be named. And as far as I understand it Huckabee isn't even as actively enthused about that as some of the others.

I know religious nut jobs like Huckabee are scary because their is something bout the whole anti-secular movement that makes us all feel that a local genocide is in the near term political weather forecast. But on the plus side I understand he is actually LESS of a war monger than McCain and America's Vampire Mayor and less of a small government anti welfare nutjob than most main stream Republicans.

Yes he is insane and his ascendancy to the dark throne might ring in a new dark age of oppression and mass murder to America and THE WORLD.

But when they burn us at the cross for all our wicked secular witchery, Santa murdering evolution science and twice daily recreational abortions we may still have welfare cheques in our pockets WELFARE DAMNIT.

[tzor]

1200283658[/unixtime]]Please, god, don't let him win the primary. If he does, don't let him win the general. If he does, someone assassinate him.

You know, you scare me more than Mike does. Oh by the way, I sort of hope he doesn't win because if he does you are suddenly in very hot water.

Look, I have very little patience for people who are perpetually parinoid about getting religious cooties. Do not fear Mike because he is openly religious. Fear him because he wants to replace the federal income tax with a federal sales tax. Get your fear priority straight. :tonguesmile:

[Bigode]

The only reason I might not support assassinating anyone who even vaguely talks about putting more religion in politics is the risk of creating a martyr.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1200325128[/unixtime]]

Look, I have very little patience for people who are perpetually parinoid about getting religious cooties. Do not fear Mike because he is openly religious. Fear him because he wants to replace the federal income tax with a federal sales tax. Get your fear priority straight. :tonguesmile:

Hey, when religion gets too powerful, we get nations like Iran. I'm just sayin'.

[Username17]

When you have presidents who listen to their imaginary sky fairy over listening to reason you get people like Bush. They decide that some course of action or another is what their imaginary friend wants them to do, and then they do it. And then, since there is no actual logic involved, they can't be dissuaded if that course of action happens to be an incredibly bad idea.

So Ron Paul is a mad man. He wants to eliminate government sponsorship of roads. That's incredibly destructive. But he want to do that because of a doctrine of freedom where he wants everyone to be allowed to make their own choices. Which apparently includes the ability to choose to not allow fire trucks to be able to drive past your house.

But he came to that position by reason. Crazy reason, but reason nonetheless. Mike on the other hand, got there from Faith. And that means that while you can potentially show Ron Raul the giant pile of corpses that his road suspension policy would create and have him back off, Mike Huckabee will not. If you demonstrate that his policies will kill hundreds of thousands of people and accomplish less than nothing, he'll go ahead anyway because he believes that it is part of God's Plan.

You know, like Bush does every single fucking day.

-Username17

[tzor]

1200329953[/unixtime]]Hey, when religion gets too powerful, we get nations like Iran. I'm just sayin'.

No that's when the leaders of a religion get too powerful.

On the other hand when you scrub religion out of the picture you get the French revolution and the U.S.S.R. I'm just sayin'.

[Username17]

On the other hand when you scrub religion out of the picture you get the French revolution and the U.S.S.R. I'm just sayin'.

So we double the life expectency of the people and take a country from being an international laughingstock to a dominant military and industrial power? Sweet! Let's get that religion out of here.

Remember that while both the USSR and the French Revolution did a number of completely pointless attrocities, both managed to create enough economic growth and domestic services that they were net benefits to the people the governed, especially when contrasted with what came immediately before.

Or to put it another way: if more people are dying from firing squads and less people are dying from diptheria, this will be an improvement or not depending upon how much more and less we are talking. In both the cases you've brought up, the less outmatched the more and the life of the average person was longer, happier, and more productive.

You're not really selling the whole religion idea with those ones if they are the most extreme "negative" examples you can come up with.

-Username17

[tzor]

1200330934[/unixtime]]But he came to that position by reason. Crazy reason, but reason nonetheless. Mike on the other hand, got there from Faith. And that means that while you can potentially show Ron Raul the giant pile of corpses that his road suspension policy would create and have him back off, Mike Huckabee will not.

In the words of that old 1960's show, Very interesting ... but stupid. The notion that Ron's position on roads (my google fu is weak, the only reference I can see on Ron Paul and highways is the internation highway between Mexico and Canada) is somehow derived from logic and that he is therefore able to reconsider it, as opposed to Mike's position on taxes which clearly must be driven by voices of the sky fairy inside his head and therefore cannot be reconsidered is ... well frankly stupid.

And trying to excuse Bush by suggesting that he is dumb only because he is religious is a pathetic cop out. Being stubborn has nothing to do with either faith or religion. Being reasonable has nothing to do with either faith of religion. Show me a reasonable man without faith, and I will show you a reasonable man with faith. Show me an unreasonable man with faith and I will show you an unreasonable man without faith.

[tzor]

1200332465[/unixtime]]Remember that while both the USSR and the French Revolution did a number of completely pointless attrocities, both managed to create enough economic growth and domestic services that they were net benefits to the people the governed, especially when contrasted with what came immediately before.

...

You're not really selling the whole religion idea with those ones if they are the most extreme "negative" examples you can come up with.

There are few examples of strong atheistic governments in the first place, which is required if one is to show a balance from your idea of the total elimination of religion cooties. Hell even an agnostic government is suspect because how can you be sure that they do not believe in the sky fairy? They might or they might not, even they can’t say!

The Reign of Terror (1793-1794) in France, towards the end of the French Revolution came at the same time that the French elevated “Reason” to a goddess. Was Maximilien Francois Marie Isidore de Robespierre reasonable? Hardly! He met the same fate that he gave to others; Robespierre was guillotined without trial.

Now let’s consider economics. The French revolution basically sucked from an economic point of view. Poor economics were as much a factor for the Reign of Terror as it was for the rise of Napoleon. It’s like the old Monty Python joke of “he turned me into a newt!” Eventually they got better.

But what did that have to do with the price of tea in China? After all, I don’t think the Count was talking about the economic situation in Iran, although you might be the one to think that their gas policy is somehow divinely inspired, I somehow strongly doubt it. The point remains, idiots exist, stubborn people exist, and both religious and atheists can be them.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

"Fear him because he wants to replace the federal income tax with a federal sales tax"

First of all, Federal Tax is bad for all involved. Essentially, it is like a giant pile of inefficiency. I mean really, let's look at it:
The corporation that you work for has to spent time to figure out how much taxes to pay the government (accountants) in order for you to figure out how much of it you want back (your time, or you pay an accountant), so that the IRS can then say that your number was wrong (up to 7 years later, more accountants). All of this time spent by trained, reasonably intelligent individuals is completely wasted. Add to this the fact that the tax laws are freaking complicated (you get a discount on your Hummer because it weighs enough to be considered a farm implement, you can ask for all of your money back then invest it for 7 years and then give the IRS their cut 7 years later while you profit, etc.). A flat sales tax gives the government enough money, makes taxes simple, taxes everyone a percentage (richer people buy more things than poor people), and provides an easy system of well-fare (poor people don't pay the sales tax). I have yet to see anyone come up with a solid argument against Fair Tax that did not consist of either "change is bad" or "you are taking away jobs".

Also, I listen to Republican Radio every once in a while and I cannot see why the international freeway to Mexico (or Canada) is bad, other than "we don't want Mexicans taking our jobs". I would rather have Mexicans work here in our factories, buy things here, get insurances here, and get SSNs here than have our factories move AWAY from the States. Factories leaving is scary, Mexicans coming here is not.

That being said, I'm looking for a sane candidate. Obama is out, Huckabee is out, Ron Paul is a maybe (but let's face it, he isn't going to last the primaries), Hilary isn't quite what I'm looking for, but I will vote for the candidate that I think is best.

[Lago_AM3P]

There are few examples of strong atheistic governments in the first place, which is required if one is to show a balance from your idea of the total elimination of religion cooties. Hell even an agnostic government is suspect because how can you be sure that they do not believe in the sky fairy? They might or they might not, even they can’t say!

Europe, Singapore, and Japan are excellent examples of secular government.

I mean, right now, the princess of Norway believes that she can talk to angel and is opening up a special angel school so other people can do the same thing. Meanwhile, the socialist secular government ignores this tomfoolery and runs things relatively smoothly there.

[Bigode]

1200336167[/unixtime]]I mean, right now, the princess of Norway believes that she can talk to angel and is opening up a special angel school so other people can do the same thing. Meanwhile, the socialist secular government ignores this tomfoolery and runs things relatively smoothly there.

Link please.

[Lago_AM3P]

I have yet to see anyone come up with a solid argument against Fair Tax that did not consist of either "change is bad" or "you are taking away jobs".

That's because you haven't been paying attention to the people trying to advocate a flat tax for, oh, decades.

The flat tax was Ross Perot's baby in 1992. After that it was Steven Forbes' baby in 1996. I don't know what happened to the idea between then.

Anyway, liberals argue against the flat tax BECAUSE:

Right now, we have a progressive tax system. As in, the more money you make the higher percentage you give in taxes. It's been like that ever since the 30's, though the 80's moved towards the flat tax with supply-side stupidity (Reaganomics), which ended in 92' with Bush's tax increase but was friggin' RESET with his son's elimination of upper-class taxes.

Anyway, to make a long story short, since we have a progressive system right now, a flat tax would shoulder more of the burden on the middle class and poor, which will indeed have the effect of depressing the economy. That should be enough of a reason to reject it.

I mean, supply side economics have already been heavily debunked and the flat tax is the lynchpin of the whole deal.

Now let’s consider economics. The French revolution basically sucked from an economic point of view. Poor economics were as much a factor for the Reign of Terror as it was for the rise of Napoleon. It’s like the old Monty Python joke of “he turned me into a newt!” Eventually they got better.

What are you talking about? The French revolution pulled the stagnant French economy out of the gutter by redistributing wealth and land to the middle and lower classes.

Since the upper class always heavily resists a transfer of wealth (exception: Black Death), violence was pretty much mandatory. I mean, shit, when Franklin Roosevelt revealed the mechanisms of the New Deal Wall Street tried to have him friggin' assassinated in a military coup.

However, once this bullshit is over, the net effect is overall economic gain and chickens in every pot and less suffering. The apologists for the 'old way' try to blind you to the net positive effects of what happened by having you focus on sensationalist events. As an added bonus they use it as a chance to slander those godless atheist [EDITED] like Trotsky, Paine, Keynes, and Marx.

[Lago_AM3P]

1200336994[/unixtime]]

1200336167[/unixtime]]I mean, right now, the princess of Norway believes that she can talk to angel and is opening up a special angel school so other people can do the same thing. Meanwhile, the socialist secular government ignores this tomfoolery and runs things relatively smoothly there.

Link please.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local ... r][br]Lago does not lie.

[Lago_AM3P]

By the way, you can visit her website at: http://www.astarte-education.com/astart ... ]Religious insanity in the monarchy For the FAIL.

[Bigode]

Thanks, and no charges were launched at any point.

Extra hilarity: European noble goes after Asian religion. AGAIN.

[Neeek]

1200336100[/unixtime]]"Fear him because he wants to replace the federal income tax with a federal sales tax"

First of all, Federal Tax is bad for all involved. Essentially, it is like a giant pile of inefficiency.

Not really. The IRS is arguably the most efficient government organization there is.

(you get a discount on your Hummer because it weighs enough to be considered a farm implement,

This is dumb, but has more to do with lobbyist having too much influence than anything regarding the tax code itself.

A flat sales tax gives the government enough money, makes taxes simple, taxes everyone a percentage (richer people buy more things than poor people), and provides an easy system of well-fare (poor people don't pay the sales tax). I have yet to see anyone come up with a solid argument against Fair Tax that did not consist of either "change is bad" or "you are taking away jobs".

Wow. Most of that is just plain wrong.

Sales taxes are regressive taxes. They take money away from those who can least afford it, and drastically reduce taxes on those best able to afford them. The rich might buy more than the poor, but they don't buy proportionately more.

Here's a tip: Someone making 200K a year doesn't spend 200K a year. Someone making 30K a year is probably spending at least 30K a year.

Further, how do the poor "not pay the sales tax"? Creating a system to identify and monitor this is at least as complicated as the IRS is now, and doesn't have the benefit of already existing.

Finally, implementing a change from the current system to the sales tax would absolutely crash the economy. What exactly do you expect to happen when everyone knows that everything is going to suddenly increase in price by about 30% next week?

That being said, I'm looking for a sane candidate. Obama is out, Huckabee is out, Ron Paul is a maybe

You want a sane candidate, and Obama is out, but Paul is plausible? That...singular.

[tzor]

1200336100[/unixtime]]Also, I listen to Republican Radio every once in a while and I cannot see why the international freeway to Mexico (or Canada) is bad, other than "we don't want Mexicans taking our jobs".

The international freeway is bad because it would only encourage illegal taco smuggling into Canada.

No seriously, go over to Nifty and ask Medesha about the card game she has where you try to smuggle taco components past the watchful eyes of the Canadian Mounties. It's really funny.

Having an international freeway through the United States is equivalent of having an interstate freeway through Massachusetts, which is a good thing if you are a hunter and you want to drive to Maine to hunt bear (or moose if you are lucky to win the lottery) because the anti-gun laws of Massachusetts do not apply on the U.S. Interstate highway system. (In theory an international highway would have NAFTA trumping state laws as well.)

OK Back to France: Anyone who has information please give me the actual dates when the revolution brought economic success to the people, because everything I've read so far has indicated that conflicts with nations who wanted to reinstate the emperor kept the economy down, and triggered the reign of terror which devistated the economy and caused the rise of Napoleon. Once you have the emperor you no longer have the revolution.

Flat taxes of today are not the same ones Ross was advocating. A number of them are proposing an offset, whereby the first $X is not taxed. I assume you could do the same for a sales tax as well. Items under $X are not taxed (or alternatively the first $X of an item is not taxed) making items of necessity not taxed or taxed less than more expensive items that are purchased by those more well off.

Yes the biggest problem with changing the tax system is that you get more complexity in the transition period. Changing the system from income to sales would be the whopper of transition periods. Even if done smoothly there would be major winners and loosers. (Consider the person who got a sudden increase in income and is currently using the income averaging rules. He would have normally paid for it in the next year but there is no income tax the next year, so his income averaging the previous year was a major perk for him tax wise.)

SERVER TOO BUSY #1 I Hate BbBOY

[Crissa]

Sales taxes are regressive and the worst thing that could happen to the economy.

Instead of someone selling hotdogs from a stand making some minor profit $margin - they now have to make $salestax+$margin. Okay? That's bad.

Someone making less than $50K (more than half the people in the US) spends ~50K per annum. Someone making more than $200K (1% of the population) spends <200K. Not ever near or equal to 200K. Not more. Also, they are able to buy things outside the market - boats from other countries, houses in other countries, etc. That's bad.

Ron Paul doesn't believe anything based upon reason. If you think so, you haven't seen his pitches to the religious right or his reasons for doing the things he does.

Huckabee may be scary because he is a Dominionist and doesn't understand seperation of Church and State. Sure. But he's the least scary because he actually believe that trope about 'to provide for a better life' duty of the government applies to everyone. Even people he doesn't like, or don't live here. He also admits he's not smart, and says people with competing and opposite plans influence him. Which is to say, he listens to crazies from all sides of the party.

Every other Republican candidate believes in narrowing the group for whom the state works for. McCain, Guiliani, Romney: Rich People. Tancredo, Hunter, Thompson: White landed folk. Ron Paul... The people who happen to have all the gold. I don't even pretend to understand how this is supposed to work, or have anything to do with the United States as envisioned by our founders or inheritors.

-Crissa

[Lago_AM3P]

Tancredo,

I really, really want him to get cock rot.

Hasn't he dropped out of the race yet? Motherfucker.


I'd also like to use this opportunity to point out that McCain has had his hand caught in the cookie jar, only the cookie jar is the savings and loan scandal and a man named Charles Keating was handing the cookies.


But we're getting off topic. More religious insanity from Mike Huckabee:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/20 ... e]Huckabee continued to exercise his powers of clemency and commutation just as foolishly and frivolously for years after he should have learned better from the DuMond mistake. He bestowed those favors on prisoners he happened to meet, on prisoners with personal connections to him or his family, and especially on prisoners recommended to him by pastors whom he happened to know from his own previous career as a Baptist minister and denominational leader. As with DuMond, whose case was pleaded by a preacher named Jay Cole, prisoners guilty of heinous crimes could be washed clean in Huckabee's estimation if a pastor of his acquaintance importuned him.[/quote]

The case that sparked the citizen revolt against Huckabee came to public attention in 2004, when he announced his intention to release a murderer and rapist named Glen Green. What seems to have impressed him was the endorsement of Green provided by one Rev. Johnny Jackson, a Baptist minister in the town of Jacksonville and friend of the governor's. Observers doubted that Huckabee had bothered to glance at the case file before he decided to release Green, because he could not have helped being chilled by the harrowing confession it contained.

Maybe I should spell it out in crayon. The man made decisions to pardon criminals based on how much they loved Jesus.

Man's a lunatic.

I have more dirt on this guy. I can go on if you're not convinced that we need to keep this guy away from the White House at all costs. Even more than the other terrifying Republican candidates.