Mike Huckabee slams pregnant Natalie Portman

Damocles said:
So, though he said nothing about government intervention your argument is that the government shouldn't intervene? And the reason for your argument is that others care? What others are saying is the dude is pretty much done, largely due to a very bad start.
Click to expand...

I resent people running for president discussing these issues as if the way they belive makes them better suited for the job than others. As if it were part of the job of presidnet to pontificate on these issues. As if what they belvive makes them more qualified to be president. As if by passing judgemnet on pregnent single women is a hurtle one must overcome to get approval from voters.
 
Voltaire said:
Huckabee doubled the size of the Arkansas state government. He's no conservative.
Click to expand...

He is a social conservative, the worst type.

All the government control of individuals without the rhetoric of financial responsability.
 
Jarod said:
I resent people running for president discussing these issues as if the way they belive makes them better suited for the job than others. As if it were part of the job of presidnet to pontificate on these issues. As if what they belvive makes them more qualified to be president. As if by passing judgemnet on pregnent single women is a hurtle one must overcome to get approval from voters.
Click to expand...
So, he didn't bring it up, he didn't suggest government intervention, didn't promote any legislation to protect the sanctity of childbearing, and wasn't actively pursuing the subject, but you resent him rather than the idiot who asked him the question? Methinks you are actively seeking some form of judgment on others without applying the "resentment" to the cause of your unease.
 
Damocles said:
So, he didn't bring it up, he didn't suggest government intervention, didn't promote any legislation to protect the sanctity of childbearing, and wasn't actively pursuing the subject, but you resent him rather than the idiot who asked him the question? Methinks you are actively seeking some form of judgment on others without applying the "resentment" to the cause of your unease.
Click to expand...

Methinks you'd be reacting differently if the speaker had a "D" next to his name.
 
Onceler said:
Methinks you'd be reacting differently if the speaker had a "D" next to his name.
Click to expand...
Methinks that Jarod would be, but I doubt I would be. It isn't like I'm supporting Huckabee, shoot you can just read Dixie's absolute anger at me for pointing out that Huckabee's missteps are likely to derail his campaign. Basically I'm trying to figure out why it would be Huckabee's speaking about this after he was asked that made him angry, and I point out that a more skilled politician wouldn't have allowed the interviewer to personalize it.
 
Damocles said:
Methinks that Jarod would be, but I doubt I would be. It isn't like I'm supporting Huckabee, shoot you can just read Dixie's absolute anger at me for pointing out that Huckabee's missteps are likely to derail his campaign. Basically I'm trying to figure out why it would be Huckabee's speaking about this after he was asked that made him angry, and I point out that a more skilled politician wouldn't have allowed the interviewer to personalize it.
Click to expand...

You didn't point out anything except how libertarian-minded fools will willingly follow the liberals anti-religious bigotry and vitriol against social conservatism. What was his "misstep?" Having the balls to say that it's a shame our culture embraces out-of-wedlock pregnancy? By "more skilled politician" you mean, some agnostic fuckwit who doesn't have the courage to stand for moral values, and takes the 'easy' way out by saying it's none of his, or anyone elses business what society does? Sorry, I don't see where you 'proved' Huckabee ever said anything WRONG!
 
Dixie said:
You didn't point out anything except how libertarian-minded fools will willingly follow the liberals anti-religious bigotry and vitriol against social conservatism. What was his "misstep?" Having the balls to say that it's a shame our culture embraces out-of-wedlock pregnancy? By "more skilled politician" you mean, some agnostic fuckwit who doesn't have the courage to stand for moral values, and takes the 'easy' way out by saying it's none of his, or anyone elses business what society does? Sorry, I don't see where you 'proved' Huckabee ever said anything WRONG!
Click to expand...
No, I mean a more skilled politician could have said it without attaching specific names. The most skilled would have done it even when the person asked about a specific person. Instead he allowed himself to be drawn into "good radio" rather than "good politics".

He's messing it up, even if you don't like me pointing it out. It's like watching Ken Buck go off on tangents planted to derail him on Meet the Depressed.
 
Dixie said:
You didn't point out anything except how libertarian-minded fools will willingly follow the liberals anti-religious bigotry and vitriol against social conservatism. What was his "misstep?" Having the balls to say that it's a shame our culture embraces out-of-wedlock pregnancy? By "more skilled politician" you mean, some agnostic fuckwit who doesn't have the courage to stand for moral values, and takes the 'easy' way out by saying it's none of his, or anyone elses business what society does? Sorry, I don't see where you 'proved' Huckabee ever said anything WRONG!
Click to expand...

How stupid to think that because someone doesn't believe in or questions the supernatural or the teachings of certain religions, that they are immoral, talk about an ignorant statement.

It is like saying all religious people are moral! What a joke.

I am certain it is just agnostics and atheists having children out of wed lock! I am sure all agnostics support out of wedlock babies.

Your generalizations are really something!

Huckabee may say whatever he wishes, he is just going to pay for it politically!

It is foolish to think only liberals and agnostics are having children out of wedlock! and they are the only ones who support such "moral decay" as you claim. Ridiculous!
 
Rana said:
How stupid to think that because someone doesn't believe in or questions the supernatural or the teachings of certain religions, that they are immoral, talk about an ignorant statement.

It is like saying all religious people are moral! What a joke.

I am certain it is just agnostics and atheists having children out of wed lock! I am sure all agnostics support out of wedlock babies.

Your generalizations are really something!

Huckabee may say whatever he wishes, he is just going to pay for it politically!

It is foolish to think only liberals and agnostics are having children out of wedlock! and they are the only ones who support such "moral decay" as you claim. Ridiculous!
Click to expand...

uh, Rana?......nobody has said that.....what has been said is that it's not good that the media glamorizes having children out of wedlock......
 
Damocles said:
No, I mean a more skilled politician could have said it without attaching specific names. The most skilled would have done it even when the person asked about a specific person. Instead he allowed himself to be drawn into "good radio" rather than "good politics".

He's messing it up, even if you don't like me pointing it out. It's like watching Ken Buck go off on tangents planted to derail him on Meet the Depressed.
Click to expand...

Dumoclueless... In case you haven't noticed, the GOP is a little short on "skilled politicians" and that's not really what conservatives are most concerned with at this point. Look, our country is in big trouble, and now is not the time to worried about cosmetic bullshit, I don't give a damn if the next GOP nominee ever was a "skilled politician!" I don't even care if they haven't held public office! We need someone to change the course of the ship dramatically, not just take over at the helm.

What we need, is someone who has principled convictions, and is passionate about what they are saying. Huckabee fits that bill for me, I haven't heard much on what he would do as president, so I can't say I would vote for him over someone else at this time. But the man does speak from his heart and is genuine, and doesn't care if it's not the "PC" or "skilled political" thing to do at the time! That's an admirable quality to me, whether you give a damn about it or not. He has the highest rated program in his time slot on the highest rated news network, so obviously, he resounds with someone out there!

The point I am making to you, is this... You are willingly joining the left in these "smear campaigns" against people on the right, because you don't like their religious beliefs. That is religious bigotry and intolerance. You disqualify Huck because he is a Baptist minister, plain and simple. He didn't have to say something "stupid" (which he didn't)... you already didn't like Huck because you are an intolerant religious bigot. You did the same thing with Sarah Palin. You jumped right in bed with the left in destroying her credibility and proclaiming her 'unelectable' and nit picked every word she said until you found something that resonated enough to kill any chance she had... so that's TWO down, Dumbo... how many more are you going to help them destroy?

I suppose we have to settle for some pro-choice elitist like Romney, for you to be satisfied. But do you really believe this man will deliver us core Reagan conservatism? I don't. In fact, I think he would be about like George W. Bush without the Religion. He is pretty much a liberal who has fooled north-easterners into believing he is conservative!

The only other "skilled political" candidate we have is Newt! Now, do you not think Newt is going to get the Royal Treatment just like Palin and Huck? Do you not believe Newt can be destroyed by things he has said, things he has done, things he might say or do with the intense focus of nitpickers who want to exploit everything he says or does? Newt will probably be the easiest of ALL to destroy this way! And heaven forbid he mentions God or something, you'll be right there with the liberals in proclaiming his political career over as well!

Great Going Dumboclueless! Maybe you'll get mentioned in Obama's '12 Victory Speech?
 
there are enough cousin marriers in bama like dixie for huck to do as well as Ark. Places where people are educated he gets crushed.
 
Rana said:
Apparently you haven't read Dixie's posts on this subject matter.:confused:
Click to expand...

I didn't say that either. I said the same thing Huck said, and I don't see what the objection is. I don't think there was anything wrong with pointing out, that it's a shame we glorify out-of-wedlock pregnancy. It is the LEFT who turned this into some kind of "religious zealot" speech, and condemned him for it. I think he makes a valid point, and I think a lot of Americans happen to agree with it. Maybe he shouldn't have singled out Natalie Portman, but that does seem to fit the example for what he was saying.
 
Dixie said:
I didn't say that either. I said the same thing Huck said, and I don't see what the objection is. I don't think there was anything wrong with pointing out, that it's a shame we glorify out-of-wedlock pregnancy. It is the LEFT who turned this into some kind of "religious zealot" speech, and condemned him for it. I think he makes a valid point, and I think a lot of Americans happen to agree with it. Maybe he shouldn't have singled out Natalie Portman, but that does seem to fit the example for what he was saying.
Click to expand...

Portman is definitely a bad example. But without her, what is he talking about? I don't see the over-glorification that you & Huck do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top