Huckleberry takes another state!

Epicurus said:
I would like to address your statement that neither are "absolute".

They are absolute, in the context of the original wording. The Supreme Court, however, has upheld restrictions on both amendments. While the original intent of the 1st and 2nd amendments are absolutely clear, I agree with the Court that for a functional society both must be suject to some degree of regulation.

But I think we should approach such regulation with extreme caution. By making any law restricting either amendment, we are going against the wishes and values of our Founders. Every step we take toward regulating the amendments is a step away from original American values. I don't think a world where rocket launchers are available over the counter is an ideal one, but I would find a world where all weapons are banned just as frightening.

We have to accept that the 2nd and 1st amendments ARE absolute, we have just chosen to interpret them in a way that makes them less so.

Every regulation we make is a digression from our true principles, and while common-sense restrictions may be essential, they do serve to undermine our values and consequently should be approached with the utmost caution.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
Well that's incredible. We have rationally reached a point of compromised agreement...

If only our legislatures could work this well...
 
Finally Huckleberry looses one. You know the guy is not half bad when you remove the whacko relign part!
 
Jarod said:
Finally Huckleberry looses one. You know the guy is not half bad when you remove the whacko relign part!
Click to expand...
You mean loses three. And in the three he lost... The closest he got was 41% to McCain's 50%. The media keeps saying it as the "barest of margins", but 9 points is pretty substantial.
 
Damocles said:
You mean loses three. And in the three he lost... The closest he got was 41% to McCain's 50%. The media keeps saying it as the "barest of margins", but 9 points is pretty substantial.
Click to expand...

I agre, but a man who proposes changing the constitution of the United States of American to reflect Gods law has no business getting 41%. Id be upset if he got 10%. People need to wake up to the evils of allowing America to be turned into a theocracy.
 
Jarod said:
People need to wake up to the evils of allowing America to be turned into a theocracy.
Click to expand...

The Religious Right has been in existence and held the agenda you describe for as long as I've been alive.

Where have you been?

They haven't exactly been a quiet bunch; their support should surprise no one.
 
Jarod said:
I agre, but a man who proposes changing the constitution of the United States of American to reflect Gods law has no business getting 41%. Id be upset if he got 10%. People need to wake up to the evils of allowing America to be turned into a theocracy.
Click to expand...

you are assuming that the 41% were voting for him BECAUSE of that reason.

That is idiotic. They may have voted for him DESPITE his position. Knowing that it didn't matter because he would not be able to get such amendments passed.... perhaps they voted to make a statement against McCain or voted because they liked Huckabees economic policy.

You need to give up your obsessive fear mongering.
 
Epicurus said:
The Religious Right has been in existence and held the agenda you describe for as long as I've been alive.

Where have you been?

They haven't exactly been a quiet bunch; their support should surprise no one.
Click to expand...

It does not suprise me, it upsets me.
 
Superfreak said:
you are assuming that the 41% were voting for him BECAUSE of that reason.

That is idiotic. They may have voted for him DESPITE his position. Knowing that it didn't matter because he would not be able to get such amendments passed.... perhaps they voted to make a statement against McCain or voted because they liked Huckabees economic policy.

You need to give up your obsessive fear mongering.
Click to expand...

The fact that they can bring themselves to vote for him dispite such an obvious problem... is a problem, but I think many voted for him because of his stance as well.
 
Jarod said:
The fact that they can bring themselves to vote for him dispite such an obvious problem... is a problem, but I think many voted for him because of his stance as well.
Click to expand...

You are so full of shit on this. Why would it be a problem if they knew he was just pandering to the far right. If they knew he had ZERO chance of ever enacting such a change.

You are simply trying to stir up shit based on nothing. Trying to spread your "fear" of Huckabee. Bottom line, you are fear mongering.
 
Superfreak said:
You are so full of shit on this. Why would it be a problem if they knew he was just pandering to the far right. If they knew he had ZERO chance of ever enacting such a change.

You are simply trying to stir up shit based on nothing. Trying to spread your "fear" of Huckabee. Bottom line, you are fear mongering.
Click to expand...

No a message should be sent that even lip service at that type of limits of freedom will not be tolerated in electoral politics. It would be like voting for Jane Fonda because she had no change of winning, but you want to promote women in politics.
 
Superfreak said:
You are so full of shit on this. Why would it be a problem if they knew he was just pandering to the far right. If they knew he had ZERO chance of ever enacting such a change.

You are simply trying to stir up shit based on nothing. Trying to spread your "fear" of Huckabee. Bottom line, you are fear mongering.
Click to expand...

I dont know about you personally, but I got all kind of shit when Jessie Jackson got votes just for being the black canidate, and he never won a primary, not even once. I was embarrased that this one issue, race baiting canidate got as much support as he did!
 
Jarod said:
I dont know about you personally, but I got all kind of shit when Jessie Jackson got votes just for being the black canidate, and he never won a primary, not even once. I was embarrased that this one issue, race baiting canidate got as much support as he did!
Click to expand...

1) I didn't care about that either, because Jackson represented something to those that voted for him. I do not care if you were embarassed. Not everyone votes exactly like you want them to.

2) AGAIN, Huckabee was not just a one idea "lets amend the Constitution" candidate. He had a lot of other ideas that had nothing to do with amending the Constitution that other people liked. They are entitled to look beyond your insecurities and realize that they can vote for the candidate that best represents them. Perhaps they really wanted him to stay in the race longer because they support his Fair Tax ideas. YOU do not know why they are voting for him. You are projecting your idiocy on them. If we eliminated candidates for having one position we disagree with, we would have no candidates. So we take a look at their positions. Assess which positions we like and dislike. Assess which have the possibility of passing. If the ones we dislike have no chance of passing then who gives a shit.
 
Jarod said:
No a message should be sent that even lip service at that type of limits of freedom will not be tolerated in electoral politics. It would be like voting for Jane Fonda because she had no change of winning, but you want to promote women in politics.
Click to expand...

So a message should be sent that people are not allowed to exercise free speech? Because YOU disagree with their ideas? Talk about UnAmerican.
 
Superfreak said:
1) I didn't care about that either, because Jackson represented something to those that voted for him. I do not care if you were embarassed. Not everyone votes exactly like you want them to.

2) AGAIN, Huckabee was not just a one idea "lets amend the Constitution" candidate. He had a lot of other ideas that had nothing to do with amending the Constitution that other people liked. They are entitled to look beyond your insecurities and realize that they can vote for the candidate that best represents them. Perhaps they really wanted him to stay in the race longer because they support his Fair Tax ideas. YOU do not know why they are voting for him. You are projecting your idiocy on them. If we eliminated candidates for having one position we disagree with, we would have no candidates. So we take a look at their positions. Assess which positions we like and dislike. Assess which have the possibility of passing. If the ones we dislike have no chance of passing then who gives a shit.
Click to expand...

Hell, even Cypress liked some of the economic populism that Huckabee spouts. The exact reason I don't like him (as a candidate).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top