Mitt Romney vs Mike Huckabee?

[nattyg]

@Kidan - since it's late and I'm not breaking up that into individual quotes


There are simply some situations, such as a city for all intents and purposes being obliterated, that requires resources in terms of money, hardware, etc... that simply can't be achived by a charitable organization, so I feel it's perfectly within the Government's powers to do that - particularly when the area has a significant impact on our economy. Ports being shut down stalls commerce, refineries being shut down escalates fuel prices, and so on - again, the impact is beyond the state so when that's the case. Further, assuming charitable organizations are capable of fulfilling all needs assumes that everyone thinks like you, is equally diligent in donations or has the means to do so - which just isn't the case. Looking at it from a pure risk perspective - that's a bad bet and if that were put in work terms for me - I'd walk away from that project in a heartbeat - you have to have contingency.

I completely agree with you on a lot of your points...but in a matter of scale, some of them are good and arguably necessary.

I'd also point out that the most valuable asset that we have are our people so I have a hard time separating how one can distinguish between the good for people as a whole, isn't in the interest of the US. Social security != the general good for people as a whole - in fact, a neglible portion of society, likewise with numerous other programs thta should be scrapped. Restoring order to a key trade hub...very important.

At any rate, my candidate won't make it past the primaries anyway, so a lot of this is just me writing big walls of text! I'd love to see FredT in, but it just won't happen - he got in too late and isn't a very good campaigner. Next choice would be Romney or RudyG. Don't trust Huckabee further than I can throw him - which is much further now - but when a guy's star rises based on his reduced waistline and a Chuck Norris nod and not on his actual performance in office... /shudder (Chuck must get his senses back).

Socially...they're both a bit iffy, but I'd rather have one of them in than throwing a vote at Ron Paul and ending up with Ross Perot Part Deux (both have RP initials...coincidence...?)

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

this largely depends on how you read it i suppose, and frankly, looks like poor lawyering IMO.

so if you take

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

as being a summary entity, not apart from the enumerated rights, you'd really have a strong argument that we must disband the Air Force! - i mean, it does call out specifically land and naval forces, but not air...

to me, the argument is more along the lines as to what constitutes *truly* general welfare

 

[kraniac]

There are simply some situations, such as a city for all intents and purposes being obliterated, that requires resources in terms of money, hardware, etc... that simply can't be achived by a charitable organization

I agree with pretty much everything Kidan's been saying.

If the government stops taking oppressive amounts of taxes from all its citizens to conduct inefficient and ineffective charity campaigns, there will be charity groups to fill the void, and they will be funded by the same people that were donating before-- except now they have nearly twice the income to donate.

 

[NevynZeddicus]

There are simply some situations, such as a city for all intents and purposes being obliterated, that requires resources in terms of money, hardware, etc... that simply can't be achived by a charitable organization, so I feel it's perfectly within the Government's powers to do that - particularly when the area has a significant impact on our economy. Ports being shut down stalls commerce, refineries being shut down escalates fuel prices, and so on - again, the impact is beyond the state so when that's the case. Further, assuming charitable organizations are capable of fulfilling all needs assumes that everyone thinks like you, is equally diligent in donations or has the means to do so - which just isn't the case.

I agree with parts of what both of you are saying. I think that, from a general welfare perspective (the economy being demolished as a result of natural disasters should be covered under that) it is the responsibility of the government to step in and assist with large scale reconstruction. I don't think they should take the bulk of the work though. That's why people take out insurance policies and other such things.

That said, I don't think that the government should buy you a new house when Hurricane Bob flattens it, or when a tidal wave ruins your beachfront property. At some point, there has to be a personal assumption of risk. Anybody that tells you they didn't know a wave could knock down a house simply means they didn't think it would happen to them.

 

[Tek7]

Good gravy, five pages of political discussion!

Have any moderators checked this thread for flames, or should I book some time to read through the thread?

EDIT: Pages 1 and 5 look good. I'll try to skim the rest soon.

Doesn't look like anyone's throwing elbows. Good deal.

 

[Atown]

Good gravy, five pages of political discussion!

Have any moderators checked this thread for flames, or should I book some time to read through the thread?

EDIT: Pages 1 and 5 look good. I'll try to skim the rest soon.

Doesn't look like anyone's throwing elbows. Good deal.

haha tek, its been a good conversation nothin bad happened yet

 

[vibrokatana]

yet

One word describes it all.

 

[ewoksrule]

I was really bummed not to see Ron Paul on the Fox News Forum (debates) tonight. In his absence I have to say that Romney looked fantastic. He just looked inspiring, very concise, clear, well rehearsed. He just looked very presidential to me. I think his comments against amnesty for illegal immigrants, and for his experience in America's economy hit really hard. I don't really like any of the choices that were at this debate but Mitt sure came out the big winner in my mind. With McCain right behind him. McCain had some good points and didn't make any mistakes but just doesn't have that polished look that Mitt has. Huck seemed to waffle all over the place and answered one question 3 times without answering it. I didn't like Huck's performance at all.

Anyways, not a very informed perspective but just a surface-level one from watching the 2 hours tonight.

 

[nattyg]

I really wanted to see it...sadly, I was on a plane, although I heard it got pretty intense at some points. I agree though... /gag at this flock of candidates

 

[Captain_Tea]

I personally like Huckabee's stance on the issues, especially abortion. My wife works for a crisis pregnancy center so abortion is an issue we follow closely. Besides Huckabee is fun to say .

As far as Romney goes I think I would rather have an athiest for president than a member of a cult. I typically vote Republican because there is a lack of godly pro-life Democrats and there isn't a third party candidate that has a chance.

 

[Lazarus]

/gag at this flock of candidates

Yeah... I think about 99% of all the candidates running for President this year are basically corrupt lying scum.
Which goes for most of Congress too, but anyhow...

What are the choices again?
An anti-second amendment dictatorial ex-mayor whose former NY citizens despise him.
A cultist who worships Lucifer...
A banjo-playing Baptist with so many allegations of wrong-doing in his past you just have to wonder why the guy is in jail instead of running for president.. then again most of the candidates should probably be in jail.
A washed-up politician who plays up his "former veteran" card all the time... since basically he hasn't got many positions that are different from the others.
A nobody.(Fred Thompson FTW. )
Another nobody. (Duncan Hunter FTL.)

The only Constitution supporting candidate of the whole bunch.(Ron Paul)
Since all presidents swear to uphold the constitution, it appears Ron Paul is the only one who could truthfully become president. Unfortunately a lot of the people in this country(including most of the Christians) could care less about the Constitution.

Politics = Epic Fail.

 

[Kidan]

I personally like Huckabee's stance on the issues, especially abortion. My wife works for a crisis pregnancy center so abortion is an issue we follow closely. Besides Huckabee is fun to say .

Well, look at Ron Paul then. He's definitely anti-abortion, though his political stance is that the Federal government has no Constitutional right to say one way or the other on whether it should be performed in the various states of the union.

 

[Captain_Tea]

Politics = Epic Fail.

Tru Dat

 

[Lloren]

Well, look at Ron Paul then. He's definitely anti-abortion, though his political stance is that the Federal government has no Constitutional right to say one way or the other on whether it should be performed in the various states of the union.

Yes. Ron Paul doesn't just talk about being anti-abortion, he is trying to stop them which I respect. He has probably done the most to try and advance the overturning of Roe vs. Wade (not just talk about it).

Check out this proposed bill that he submitted. It would effectively define life as beginning at conception which would nullify abortions as they would be an act of murder. It is a genius step which nullifies the Supreme Court decision immediately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

Even if the congress doesn't support Ron when he is President he will be able to block the mountain of terrible bills that come through which would be awesome. As I Christian voter I need to vote for man who impeccable morals and Ron proves it in his record for 20 years as a congressman. Most politicians who go to Washington have some corruption or questionable stories behind them and there is nothing on this guy. I remember a quote of John McCain introducing someone to Ron Paul and saying that he was the most "honest man in Washington". Pretty nice thing to say.

 

[Atown]

Honestly can someone answer the following question?

Its obvious for the christian voter Ron paul is teh man. however from a political standpoint, he is an extremist, he distances anyone who considers themselves "independent thinkers" which seems moderates and those annoyed with politics who currently seem the majority in most areas. and working off what lloren said, if hes going to be that much disruption then why would anyone who doesnt like hilary or obama vote for him over guilani or McCain? I really dont see the purpose in supporting an extremist who doesnt stand a chance to be elected. He wont even go on the Savage show and wasnt apart of the fox debates either which to me is a negative to showing what he can do compared to the others and ive heard amazing things about romney in that debate and others. and again, he just doesnt have any charisma whatsoever i really cant watch or listen to him when i try. And Huck has Chuck.... thats like half the internet right there voting for him

 

[vibrokatana]

He wasn't allowed on the shows, it isn't that he doesn't want to go.

 

[Atown]

He wasn't allowed on the shows, it isn't that he doesn't want to go.

i'll refer to one of my first posts: links? and yeah actually Savage has invited him to come on the show. i heard him complain about it last week that ron paul wont come on his show and like 50min ago heard savage complain again bout it.

 

[Lloren]

You bring up a good point Atown about electability (not sure about spelling) and its a philosophical choice we all must make. Do we vote for someone based on charisma and charm (aka, electibility) or because of their principles and record? Its a tough choice and its not easy.

I was totally apathetic to all politics and could care less about however was elected. It always seemed like picking the lesser of two evils. I was totally getting into Obama because he really sounded like a smart guy and a good speaker. Then a couple months ago my friend had me check out Ron Paul which totally jazzed me up.

You are right though about choosing a president that it is a difficult process. For the first time in my life I've donated to a candidate and gotten involved in the local political process. I had no idea how any of this stuff worked until 2 months ago. Anyways I think whether he is elected or not, the effect had its purpose on me which was to get me to think more about our government. More in depth discussion and thought about our current nation is great. I'm sick of the shallow superficial discussions of who has the greatest haircut or who would look good in a flight suit.

This is the video my friend sent me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hCKZmkF0VU

 

[Atown]

Yeah, I'm all for record. without a solid record you cant do much. and without charisma your stuck. I mean ive listened to Ronald Reagen speeches and hes a cool guy. Romney has a pretty clean record and is very charismatic. Huckabee is decent, christian, not mormon, and has somewhat charisma and is more moderate therefor is more electable.

Obama scares me though. He has mentioned being raised with koranic studies and if i remember right he swore into senate with not a bible but a koran. wikipedia has it that he was raised with koranic studies from a reference on a boston paper and im finding mixed stuff on the swearing on the koran but i think i heard it on the radio with sean hannity a few months ago. but yeah. Also if you look up his churches website it scared me very much so. we're not perfect, but we're overall a very successful nation because of the things we have done.

just finished the last part of the ron paul thing: he said we cant fix things through a barrel of a gun.... then how did we get our liberty? how did we get a united country with the north and south? how did we fix our problems with japan in WWII? I understand peace and i want peace. noone likes war. but hes saying we need to set an example for other nations, i agree with that. but nations/organizations bent on the destruction of america, is not something we can just talk through.

In alot of ways i feel kinda misplaced though since this is the first election i can actually participate in.

 

[Lloren]

but nations/organizations bent on the destruction of america, is not something we can just talk through.

That is an interesting point about the security of our country. As far as I know there is no nation that is "bent" on the destruction of america. There are people who want to kill Americans, but the question is why?

Just because there are potential murderers in the world it doesn't seem to me like we have the right to go and kill people who might hurt us. In other words, the Christian Just War Theory states that we should defend ourselves when only when we are attacked. I appreciate for how Israel dealt with terrorist attacks on their country, they sent out groups of people to systematically kill the terrorists involved. Its hard to justify war against a country when a only a few people in the country are responsible for attacking you. What if some extremist-Presbyterians went and blew up Bejing? Would China be justified to invade LA?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC6D6uiLrgQ (*some violent war images*)

 

[Atown]

I wasnt saying we use christianity to justify a war, but when our towers fell, we knew who to drop deliveries on.

and there was a reason i said "nation/organization " i try to be very careful on how im wording stuff.

And in my mind, its not about taking out nations in the situation with the middle east (aside from afghanistan) its more or less taking care of the issue of terrorists who reside in those countries. Now iraq had alot of mistakes. but now people dont live under someone who gased people in his own country, killed people just because, and used mass graves... obviously it didt work out the way we wanted, but then again, arent we thus questioning the very will of God? and how he is the one who appoints rulers and inevitably removes them whether by natural causes or not?

also on a note, and this does not mean i dont mourn the losses of our active duties, but in the revolutionary war:

An estimated 25,000 American Revolutionaries died during active military service. About 8,000 of these deaths were in battle; the other 17,000 deaths were from disease, including about 8,000 who died while prisoners of war. The number of Revolutionaries seriously wounded or disabled by the war has been estimated from 8,500 to 25,000. The total American military casualty figure was therefore as high as 50,000.[19]

civil war

The full restoration of the Union was the work of a highly contentious postwar era known as Reconstruction. The war produced about 970,000 casualties (3% of the population), including about 620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease.[126] The war accounted for more casualties than all other U.S. wars combined.[127] The causes of the war, the reasons for its outcome, and even the name of the war itself are subjects of lingering controversy today. About 4 million black slaves were freed in 1865. Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6% in the North and an extraordinary 18% in the South.[128]

so 4million blacks were granted freedom and freedom from violence at the cost of the civil war.... and now

A July 2006 estimate of the total Iraqi population is 26,783,383.

iraqi's now do not fear violence from their own president.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

There have been 4,210 coalition deaths -- 3,904 Americans, two Australians, 174 Britons, 13 Bulgarians, one Czech, seven Danes, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Fijian, one Hungarian, 33 Italians, one Kazakh, one Korean, three Latvian, 22 Poles, three Romanians, five Salvadoran, four Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 18 Ukrainians -- in the war in Iraq as of January 7, 2008, according to a CNN