Author Topic: Huck finn's new strategy; interesting  (Read 8502 times)

Tecumseh

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
Re: Huck finn's new strategy; interesting
« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2008, 09:24:56 PM »
we can only hope that works.

Say what you like about Huckabee, I like him.  And you damn sure can't say he'd be a worse nominee then McCain.

At least McCain hasn't suggested that we change the US constitution "to fit God's standards."

Sorry, I don't like the idea of having a theocrat in office. 
If anything, the founding fathers were more religious then Huckabee.  And just what has he proposed that you don't agree with?  I don't care to hear you don't like his reason, I want to hear jsut what he wants done you disagree with.
Not true at all.  In their private lives they were deists, aethists, and agnostics. 

Strings

  • Guest
Re: Huck finn's new strategy; interesting
« Reply #26 on: February 19, 2008, 11:25:41 AM »
Oh gawds, not this stuff again!

 I don't care what the Founding Fathers worshiped: it's entirely beside the point.

 Huckabee has said he wants to "bring the Constitution more in line with the Bible", or some such. Since I don't follow the Bible, that makes me a touch nervous. Now, if someone could please explain what, PRECISELY, he means by that, I might even vote for him...

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Huck finn's new strategy; interesting
« Reply #27 on: February 19, 2008, 12:02:25 PM »
I believe he's proposing some kind of no gay marriage and no abortion type amendments.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: Huck finn's new strategy; interesting
« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2008, 12:29:07 PM »
I believe he's proposing some kind of no gay marriage and no abortion type amendments.

And to be fair he should also propose a concubine amendment also.

Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

Strings

  • Guest
Re: Huck finn's new strategy; interesting
« Reply #29 on: February 19, 2008, 01:08:40 PM »
i will NOT get involved in the abortion debate: can't really "decide" that one via someone's rights, as either direction can be argued as violating the rights of somebody.

 The whole "gay marriage" thing is starting to piss me off, actually. So long as the people involved are adults, and enter into things of their own free will, the government should keep their noses out of it. I have yet to hear a decent argument against gay marriage that didn't involve some form of religious view...

 So, thank you for explaining why I can't (in good faith) vote for Huck.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Huck finn's new strategy; interesting
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2008, 01:37:44 PM »
I don't really know why the .gov is involved in any form of marriage. It'd take, what? Three non-marriage documents to provide people with all the legal results of marriage without all the angst.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

keeleon

  • New Member
  • Posts: 61
Re: Huck finn's new strategy; interesting
« Reply #31 on: February 19, 2008, 01:41:08 PM »
This is probably getting a little off topic, But I have never really gotten all the hubbub over "gay marriage" either.  It always seemed a little silly that it was so difficult to me.  Marriage IS defined as a commitment between a man and a woman.   Heterosexual love is defined as being between a man and a woman, just as a man having sexual feelings for another man is defined as  homosexuality.  That is how it has always been.  Why would they want to be defined by something that is clearly not a correct definition.  We don't call them "straight", so why should we call their committed relationships "marriages"?

So the question I have, is why don't both sides just accept that, and let the "gays" come up with a new word?    I say it is completely irrelevant to the law.  If they want to commit to each other, then they should have all the same rights that a normal marriage has, tax benefits, wills, property rights.  Just call it something else so the ridiculous religious fanatics no longer have anything to complain about.

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Re: Huck finn's new strategy; interesting
« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2008, 07:30:54 AM »
I believe he's proposing some kind of no gay marriage and no abortion type amendments.

And to be fair he should also propose a concubine amendment also.


I'd vote for that just from a public safety aspect......one wife is more than any man can handle...  grin
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.