My fear about McCain...

[Jarod]

This makes little sense. Would you prefer if Huckabee offered a "broad" amendment that said that biblical law takes precedence or was written with broad strokes which a future activists court might interpret that way?

Using the abortion issue as an example, I would perfer he propose an amendement that said people's personal freedoms are allowed to be limited by the government when the legislature belived that it it better for the state for its own reasoning on an issue is better than that of the people. If he did that the amendment would have an even less shot at passing and the person who proposed it would have no political future. Instead, they merely choose an emotional issue and try to shove it down people's throat!

 

[Timshel]

My fear is someone who espouses such dangerous views getting to power on them. If we are going to change our constitution to bring it in line with Gods Standards" whose interpertation of Gods Standards should we use? Anyone who promotes a rule or law because it is what "God" would want, instead of a practical reasonable well laid out basis for a rule or law is scary to me, because that argument can be used to justify just about anything.

It's not a rational fear, because he cannot follow through. Further, I fail to see how abortion being outlawed is really a bigger deal than the many other areas where individuals are not permitted choice in personal matters.

We should be afraid of McCain because he can easily achieve his warrior state and this will eventually destroy us if we don't stop it.

 

[Timshel]

Using religion as a tool to gain the presidency is SOO un-American. Why can't he just money and cronyism like all the rest of them ?

Or gender issues. Why is the right to choose an abortion so much more important than other medical decisions (e.g., right to use certain drugs and medical procedures)? Answer, politics.

 

[Jarod]

It's not a rational fear, because he cannot follow through. Further, I fail to see how abortion being outlawed is really a bigger deal than the many other areas where individuals are not permitted choice in personal matters.

We should be afraid of McCain because he can easily achieve his warrior state and this will eventually destroy us if we don't stop it.

I agree with the second paragraph. As to the first paragraph, the guy won a primary, and I said IF he is chosen as McCain's VP! As far as areas where individuals not being permitted choice in personal matters, put them throught the ROW test and see how they come out!

 

[Timshel]

Using the abortion issue as an example, I would perfer he propose an amendement that said people's personal freedoms are allowed to be limited by the government when the legislature belived that it it better for the state for its own reasoning on an issue is better than that of the people. If he did that the amendment would have an even less shot at passing and the person who proposed it would have no political future. Instead, they merely choose an emotional issue and try to shove it down people's throat!

This is the status quo. Courts often use the state's interest as a reason to support laws.

 

[Jarod]

Or gender issues. Why is the right to choose an abortion so much more important than other medical decisions (e.g., right to use certain drugs and medical procedures)? Answer, politics.

Someone should challange some of the restrictions on medical procedures or drugs in the federal courts using a Row argument, Id like to see that!

 

[Jarod]

This is the status quo. Courts often use the state's interest as a reason to support laws.

Sure they do, but they use a ballanceing test, (Row v. Wade) and they ballance the individuals interest with the interest of the state.

What the supporters of an amendemtn banning Abortion are saying is that they are willing to take away the interest of the individual as a consideration in this one particular issue. If they can do it on one issue, they can do it on others.

So dont propose a single issue amendment, just propose an amendment that says the individuals rights should never be considered, destroy the entire penumbra of freedom the constitution estabilshes and be done with it!

 

[gonzojournals]

My fear is someone who espouses such dangerous views getting to power on them. If we are going to change our constitution to bring it in line with Gods Standards" whose interpertation of Gods Standards should we use? Anyone who promotes a rule or law because it is what "God" would want, instead of a practical reasonable well laid out basis for a rule or law is scary to me, because that argument can be used to justify just about anything.

Dude, it is pretty obvious at this point that you just want to argue about the religious right and the Constitution, since you have been told like 5 times now that it has nothing to do with Huckabee.

 

[Jarod]

Dude, it is pretty obvious at this point that you just want to argue about the religious right and the Constitution, since you have been told like 5 times now that it has nothing to do with Huckabee.

No matter how many times you say it has nuthing to do with Huckleberry it is still not true. Huckleberry proposed the central argument/fear/discust/distrust I have toward the Religous right. He wants to limit individual freedom in the name of Christianity. He promotes that in an effort to get votes.

Limiting individual freedom in the name of Christianity is exactly what prompted the founders to start this nation!

 

[gonzojournals]

No matter how many times you say it has nuthing to do with Huckleberry it is still not true. Huckleberry proposed the central argument/fear/discust/distrust I have toward the Religous right. He wants to limit individual freedom in the name of Christianity. He promotes that in an effort to get votes.

Limiting individual freedom in the name of Christianity is exactly what prompted the founders to start this nation!

Huckabee (his name, by the way) is not the issue then--- you are just looking for an excuse to talk about the Christian right. Since it is obvious that Huckabee is not going to get even close to the White House and since Damo has repeatedly told you that you are taking that quote out of context, the real issue here is just that you feel like bitching about fundamentalism. Which is fine, but just admit that is your agenda here, not any sort of fear of Huckabee.

 

[Timshel]

I agree with the second paragraph. As to the first paragraph, the guy won a primary, and I said IF he is chosen as McCain's VP!

He won primary, so what? Even if he won the nomination and election, he still could not change this. And as VP? That's a joke.

As far as areas where individuals not being permitted choice in personal matters, put them throught the ROW test and see how they come out!

Roe said people have a fundamental right to privacy. I see no reason why that right has less importance in these other areas or how those laws/regulations pass strict scrutiny.

 

[Damocles]

Using religion as a tool to gain the presidency is SOO un-American. Why can't he just money and cronyism like all the rest of them ?

Or name recognition as well as cronyism.

 

[Jarod]

Huckabee (his name, by the way) is not the issue then--- you are just looking for an excuse to talk about the Christian right. Since it is obvious that Huckabee is not going to get even close to the White House and since Damo has repeatedly told you that you are taking that quote out of context, the real issue here is just that you feel like bitching about fundamentalism. Which is fine, but just admit that is your agenda here, not any sort of fear of Huckabee.

Huckleberry is currently the face of fundamentalism in politics.

Damo was wrong about the context, and I dont care if Huckleberry was limiting his statement to one issue, it has the same effect.

 

[Jarod]

He won primary, so what? Even if he won the nomination and election, he still could not change this. And as VP? That's a joke.



Roe said people have a fundamental right to privacy. I see no reason why that right has less importance in these other areas or how those laws/regulations pass strict scrutiny.

1) It does not matter if what he is trying to do has a chance of getting done, giving the guy any credence based on his attempt to use religen to limit individual freedom is wrong. He got where he is doing that and it should be pointed out scrutinized and exposed for the evil that it is.

2) They use the word privacy where it would be better understood to mean freedom. You have the right to privacy in the making of personal decisions... FREEDOM. I agree Row v. Wade should be used to promote freedom in more areas, the caselaw is solid, good and should be used as the insterment of freedom that it is!

 

[gonzojournals]

Huckleberry is currently the face of fundamentalism in politics.

Damo was wrong about the context, and I dont care if Huckleberry was limiting his statement to one issue, it has the same effect.

If the face of fundamentalism in politics is some guy that doesn't have a chance in hell, I think you can consider the country safe.

 

[Jarod]

If the face of fundamentalism in politics is some guy that doesn't have a chance in hell, I think you can consider the country safe.

I do, much safer than it has been in the past 8 years. My fear is that he will be chosen as VP becuase McCain is insecure about his position with the religous right.

The mere fact that this guy gets 14% of the Republican vote deserves attention and to be pointed out.

 

[Damocles]

Huckleberry is currently the face of fundamentalism in politics.

Damo was wrong about the context, and I dont care if Huckleberry was limiting his statement to one issue, it has the same effect.

I was not wrong. I simply forgot about the whole Marriage Amendment. You pretend that this stuff hasn't been bandied about before, with just as much success.

Wedge issues, like abortion, can be used by a candidate that almost will get there, but won't otherwise. This guy, not a chance.

Thankfully none of the others are using this inanity in their campaigns.

 

[Damocles]

1) It does not matter if what he is trying to do has a chance of getting done, giving the guy any credence based on his attempt to use religen to limit individual freedom is wrong. He got where he is doing that and it should be pointed out scrutinized and exposed for the evil that it is.

2) They use the word privacy where it would be better understood to mean freedom. You have the right to privacy in the making of personal decisions... FREEDOM. I agree Row v. Wade should be used to promote freedom in more areas, the caselaw is solid, good and should be used as the insterment of freedom that it is!

1) I would agree if the guy had credence to back up the mongering. He does not.

2) It hurts your side if you attempt to create panic in a situation where there is no danger of the guy winning or getting a VP spot. As in this case.

 

[Timshel]

1) It does not matter if what he is trying to do has a chance of getting done, giving the guy any credence based on his attempt to use religen to limit individual freedom is wrong. He got where he is doing that and it should be pointed out scrutinized and exposed for the evil that it is.

I disagree. I have studied the demographics on a few states and it appears to me that he is stuck where he is because of these issues. They limit him as much if not more than they buoy him.

Even if he is elected, he can't succeed in this issue.

Again, my problem is not that you find his position wrong, I do as well. It's that it would comprise your one "fear about McCain." McCain's threats to liberty are greater and more realizable than Huckabee's. Huckabee as VP would not make any difference to me. Hell, I'd probably prefer him as President over McCain, though the preference would not be enough to make me support him.

2) They use the word privacy where it would be better understood to mean freedom. You have the right to privacy in the making of personal decisions... FREEDOM. I agree Row v. Wade should be used to promote freedom in more areas, the caselaw is solid, good and should be used as the insterment of freedom that it is!

Cool. So you are against the FDA?

 

[Timshel]

Giuliani as VP would probably make me that much more opposed to McCain, but I can't think of anyone else. The most hopeful thing about a McCain presidency is that he is old and may die soon.