i can see religious people buying into that...is that something a large portion of christians believe?

12/5/2007 11:24:36 PM

i support him for approving to ban evolution from the classroom, outlaw abortion, and criminalize any sinful action (premarital sex, alcohol, drugs, gays, gambling, jewism) that jesus would not approve off if he was here today.

12/6/2007 12:59:41 AM

not that i'm a huckabee fan, but how much of that does he really want to do?

12/6/2007 1:04:18 AM

I would love to see the Fair Tax implemented, because it would give an advantage to those who are thrifty and save, which I think my wife and I are in the top percentage of couples ...

HOWEVER, I dont think it has a chance in hell to pass congress.

Found this interesting about Huckabee ... wonder how much of it has legs.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/11/28/huckabees-real-record/

12/6/2007 4:42:13 AM

I dont think the freed rapist thing is that big of a deal. He was governor, and those mistakes happen and will continue to happen. How many other criminals get released go on to commit other crimes? Who do we blame for those? If we are blaming someone you dont hear about it.

I thought a little bit more of how him being a minster makes me uncomfortable and then I thought what a sad world this has become when we would rather trust lawyers and career politicians over a minister. THe part about him being a minster that scares me is the justification of any action as a call from god. However, Ive seen no indication that he is that way.

I think you can gather by the increased attacks that huckabee might actually have a shot.

12/6/2007 9:03:55 AM

yeah i'd almost put money that Bush and Co. will pardon the guys convicted in the Enron scandal. They did pretty much raped 1000's of people investments and 401k's

12/6/2007 9:57:03 AM

Quote :

"HOWEVER, I dont think it has a chance in hell to pass congress. "

Don't write it off that fast.

I'm amazed how much interest and awareness HR25 (FairTax Bill) has picked up during this election.

We are still at the stage where the critics can take advantage of the public's ignorance of the details of the FairTax. They can still get away with cheap-shots such as Guiliani's "You'll lose your home mortgage deduction"

I think as more people learn about the benefits of the FairTax, the critics will have to knuckle down and actually debate the facts...at which I believe they will fail.

But true, the FairTax is a grassroots project. Most statist politicians and powerful lobbyists will fight it tooth and nail. They will have to cave in if the ground-swell gets too big and their jobs are threatened.

12/6/2007 10:19:34 AM

Quote :

"We are still at the stage where the critics can take advantage of the public's ignorance of the details of the FairTax. They can still get away with cheap-shots such as Guiliani's "You'll lose your home mortgage deduction" "

If we're going to implement this thing, we should lose home mortgage deduction.

12/6/2007 11:21:55 AM

Quote :

"We are still at the stage where the critics can take advantage of the public's ignorance of the details of the FairTax. They can still get away with cheap-shots such as Guiliani's "You'll lose your home mortgage deduction"

The mortgage interest deduction is an insane subsidy to the middle-class to begin with, and is basically used to sell tax policy to wide swaths of voters. The fact that politicians like Guiliani use it as a bludgeon indicates just how political our tax code is.

12/6/2007 11:39:14 AM

regarding the fairtax: if this tax rewards people who are thrifty, wouldn't that likely kill our consumer economy? i mean i know slowing down some of the irresponsible spending wouldn't be a terrible thing, but we rely on our citizens buying goods and services. is there any indication on how this different tax structure would affect that?

12/6/2007 11:53:09 AM

Again, if that were true, we should see an inverse correlation between savings rate and GDP growth. (We don't).

The only way savings have a net negative impact on growth is when someone is taking that money and literally sticking it under a mattress - i.e., it is being put to absolutely no economic use. When you put it in a bank or sink it into stocks, that's making money available for investment capital - money out there on the market to start and expand businesses, build and buy housing, etc.

Now, there's a point of diminishing returns where the marginal contribution of savings to the economy is less than a corresponding increase in spending - but the fact is that people are not going to suddenly go from a negative savings rate to a "stuff-every-dollar-under-the-mattress" savings rate, even with an NST.

12/6/2007 11:57:12 AM

Quote :

" The mortgage interest deduction is an insane subsidy to the middle-class to begin with"

what is the problem......................................

Good its about time the gov't helped out the middle class who work their asses off to excel in life; and are the backbone to the innovation that makes the economy churn.

The upper classes have been getting plenty of help with Bush's tax plans and have the finances to find loopholes in the system. Income tax for the highest income makers is nearly at an all time LOW at 35% since the inception of income tax.

Meanwhile the lower class pretty much gets rewarded for laziness and many simply mooch of the system with no motivation to better their lives. They already pay the least taxes and receive proportionally the most benefit from federal programs.

12/6/2007 2:35:42 PM

Hur EVERYONE who paid taxes got a benefit from the tax cuts. Hell even those who didnt bitched and got a child credit check. WTF

Please stop with the tax cut helps the rich, yes they paid more money and so they got to keep more of THIER money. If you PAID as much in taxes as they do, you would have gotten a bigger break.

Simply do away with all taxes but the sales, and you wont need the mortgage deduction bc you wont be paying income taxes. Basically its just away to get SOME of your money back.

12/6/2007 4:04:39 PM

Quote :

"what is the problem......................................"

That it's a very expensive economic distortion with no good reason to exist? Yes, let's start with that.

Quote :

"Meanwhile the lower class pretty much gets rewarded for laziness and many simply mooch of the system with no motivation to better their lives. They already pay the least taxes and receive proportionally the most benefit from federal programs."

I've got a better idea. Simplify the tax code. I don't really care how you do it - NST, flat tax, or just the plain old unambitious method proposed by the Treasury Department's tax panel (although, again, ditch the damned mortgage credit). Simplify it and broaden the tax base. Lower the possibilities for evasion, lower the compliance cost, and - heaven forfend - spend less money. That's how you can lighten the load on the middle class, all without artificial economic distortion.

12/6/2007 4:28:46 PM

I've voiced my approval of a flat tax on many occasions.

12/6/2007 5:06:32 PM

Quote :

"i support him for approving to ban evolution from the classroom, outlaw abortion, and criminalize any sinful action (premarital sex, alcohol, drugs, gays, gambling, jewism) that jesus would not approve off if he was here today. "

How about you provide a link to any of those accusations? That's right, you CAN'T. In fact, he said during the last debate that maybe the "6 days" in the bible that the earth was created represents some period of time in the earth's history. How about you stop making up lies. I know that would be hard for you, as you couldn't participate in any type of political discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA&feature=related

12/6/2007 5:47:17 PM

Uh, he specifically said that he did not believe in evolution when the candidates were asked by show of hands. Do you need a link to that one? Because I'm pretty sure we can dredge that one up.

12/6/2007 8:49:28 PM

sorry wrong thread

[Edited on December 7, 2007 at 12:50 AM. Reason : he was in gboro earlier]

12/7/2007 12:47:42 AM

Quote :

"Simplify the tax code."

Simplifying the tax code is a really hard problem. I think it's basically like a computer program. There was the original tax code. Then people found creative ways to "hack" it. So special provisions were added to the code to prevent those "hacks." Then people find new, creative ways to get around the code. And so on, and so forth -- it's an arms race. Eventually you end up with things like AMT.

Just saying "well, duh, make it simpler" ignores the fundamental realities of collecting tax predictably from individuals and businesses. People don't want to pay tax, but the government needs money. These are inherently competing goals.

Suggesting a flat or "fair" tax system that just takes a certain amount of money off "transactions" from everyone won't work. Because if you spend five minutes reading the tax code, you realize that there's a ludicrously large number of ways that people exchange money (and things of value), and it's impossible to treat them all generally with one rule.

So -- I think you, like Mr. Huckabee, have unrealistic expectations of the system. All I want, as a taxpayer, is for the IRS to deal fairly with taxpayers and to grant leniency/relief in any case not involving gross misconduct. It's hard for me to say, right now, how well the IRS has performed in that respect -- but I think that, as a systemic problem, it's more a question of competent administration and staffing versus systemic tax code change.

Of course I support lower taxes and simplification within reason, but I don't expect that a complete overhaul is possible.

12/7/2007 5:40:50 AM

Quote :

" I think as more people learn about the benefits of the FairTax, the critics will have to knuckle down and actually debate the facts...at which I believe they will fail."

I think the FairTax will always fail because, as a radical measure, it is always subject to the forces of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. And while I'd normally say FUD is a bad thing, in this case it seems like a good instinct.

Seriously -- let's say the FairTax system is implemented tomorrow and the sixteenth amendment is repealed. What if it doesn't work and the government does indeed face a massive revenue shortfall? There's not much recourse.

And you, the FairTax supporter, can hardly claim that the new system won't have major unintended consequences. After all, the failure to recognize such consequences has characterized our "legacy" tax system for its entire existence. They are inherent to all national law.

Having said that, FairTax is just a nutty system and the entitlements ("prebate") aspect of it is disturbing.

12/7/2007 5:56:18 AM

Interesting (if biased) read on Huckabee's use of pardons and clemencies while governor:

Quote :

"Governors seldom reduce sentences in other states – and almost never for murderers serving life without parole or for rapists or for habitual drunk drivers, while in Arkansas it's a regular habit with Huckabee. ___ Other governors use their clemency power only rarely, while Huckabee has made it routine. As we've told you before, he has issued more than 700 pardons and commutations during his eight years in office – more than 137 this year alone – and more than his three predecessors combined. ___ Here are the figures for neighboring states since 1996, when Huckabee took office (and keep in mind the population of these states is nearly 20 times ours): ___ >> Louisiana – 213. ___ >> Mississippi – 24. ___ >> Missouri – 79. ___ >> Oklahoma – 178. ___ >> Tennessee – 32. ___ >> Texas – 98 (includes 36 inmates released because they were convicted on drug charges with planted evidence). ___ Total: 624 vs. Huckabee's 703. "

http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_08_11_04/huckabee8.html

I didn't realize he was so big on clemencies. I knew about the rapist he let out that ended up murdering someone else, but I had no idea he'd granted 703 clemencies. Without knowing the details of the individual cases, of course, it's hard to pass judgment, but the number seems disproportionately high. It certainly paints him as soft on crime, or rather it could do so to the republican voting public.

12/7/2007 10:05:22 AM

Quote :

"Simplifying the tax code is a really hard problem. I think it's basically like a computer program. There was the original tax code. Then people found creative ways to "hack" it. So special provisions were added to the code to prevent those "hacks." Then people find new, creative ways to get around the code. And so on, and so forth -- it's an arms race. Eventually you end up with things like AMT."

The only reason people found ways to "hack" the tax code is because lawmakers made poorly-designed "patches" to add "features" to encourage/discourage certain economic behaviors. Thus, rather than using the tax code purely as a revenue system, it became a vehicle for social and economic policy. This is where flaws become introduced, and the whole problem of patches upon patches comes in.

Quote :

"Just saying "well, duh, make it simpler" ignores the fundamental realities of collecting tax predictably from individuals and businesses. People don't want to pay tax, but the government needs money. These are inherently competing goals."

This issue isn't tax evasion (I mean, duh, no one wants to pay taxes - but the more you try and make your tax code a vehicle of social policy, the more loopholes you inherently introduce). The problem is we try and do things with our tax code that really should just be left out.

Quote :

"Suggesting a flat or "fair" tax system that just takes a certain amount of money off "transactions" from everyone won't work. Because if you spend five minutes reading the tax code, you realize that there's a ludicrously large number of ways that people exchange money (and things of value), and it's impossible to treat them all generally with one rule."

Faulty logic. Even the Treasury Department's Tax Panel found a way to simply the system greatly while accounting for different types of income (business, personal, etc). The problem is that we want to micro-manage the economy by tinkering with the tax code, adding and subtracting different incentives for each and every type of transaction, rather than applying broad, generic rules for income / whatever else we want to use as a tax source.

This is not just a problem with the tax code, but the philosophy of the tax code in Congress. Ergo, I wouldn't expect to see one president change this either - it would require a sea change in the legislature. However, I think if you asked as majority of Americans, they would support a major overhaul if it meant simpler compliance. The issue is that too many interests benefit from an opaque, byzantine tax code as it is.

12/7/2007 10:16:49 AM

Quote :

"I dont think the freed rapist thing is that big of a deal. He was governor, and those mistakes happen and will continue to happen. How many other criminals get released go on to commit other crimes? Who do we blame for those? If we are blaming someone you dont hear about it."

I ultimately agree. However, Huckabee is a member of a party that made a very big deal out of Willie Horton to win a presidential election.

12/7/2007 10:45:52 AM

Quote :

"Uh, he specifically said that he did not believe in evolution when the candidates were asked by show of hands. Do you need a link to that one? Because I'm pretty sure we can dredge that one up. "

That's not a fair way to ask that question. It's a more complicated topic to a lot of people, which he clarifies his view in the video i just posted.

12/7/2007 10:53:01 AM

Quote :

"That's not a fair way to ask that question. It's a more complicated topic to a lot of people, which he clarifies his view in the video i just posted."

Then what is? Either you believe evolution happened, or you don't. Evolution doesn't preclude the existence of a divine entity, but the fact is, when flat out asked, he said no. And when asked again, he said no again.

But worse, when he answers the question, he actively distorts it. Believing in evolution is NOT the same thing as atheism, and Huckabee actively exploits this prejudice. If anything, it makes him worse than just being a country-fried rube: it makes him actively attacking science as anti-religious. Trying to tar evolution as an atheist conspiracy is a bullshit move, and hardly speaks to "Huck's" integrity.

Yeah, thanks for the video there - it proves my point in more ways than I could ever do myself.

12/7/2007 11:26:44 AM

Quote :

"I think the FairTax will always fail because, as a radical measure, it is always subject to the forces of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt"

Good thing you weren't around during the American Revolution. That whole project was rife with "Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt" Americans at their core truly love beating the odds.

Quote :

"...that the new system won't have major unintended consequences"

It might. But I know for sure that the consequences of the current income tax are horrendous.

Quote :

"...entitlements ("prebate") aspect of it is disturbing"

Critics label the prebate as an entitlement. But it's actually a refund of the sales tax you would pay for items up to the poverty level. And again, without the prebate system which removes the poor from paying tax...the FairTax wouldn't have a chance. Unfortunately in today's world, No tax system will be accepted that makes the poor pay.

Quote :

" ...system takes a certain amount of money off "transactions" from everyone won't work."

Most States already have a sales tax system that seems to work fine.

[Edited on December 7, 2007 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

12/7/2007 11:53:08 AM

hate to say it but i'd vote Hillary over this n00b

12/7/2007 12:10:30 PM

Quote :

"But worse, when he answers the question, he actively distorts it. Believing in evolution is NOT the same thing as atheism, and Huckabee actively exploits this prejudice. I"

I don't think he actively distorts it. I think he knows more about the religious aspects than the scientific and doesn't feel comfortable dealing with the scientific side. I think he clearly recognizes that toeing the line helps him with the sectarian right, but I don't think he's actively distorting it.

12/7/2007 12:34:01 PM

Quote :

"Then what is? Either you believe evolution happened, or you don't. Evolution doesn't preclude the existence of a divine entity, but the fact is, when flat out asked, he said no. And when asked again, he said no again. But worse, when he answers the question, he actively distorts it. Believing in evolution is NOT the same thing as atheism, and Huckabee actively exploits this prejudice. If anything, it makes him worse than just being a country-fried rube: it makes him actively attacking science as anti-religious. Trying to tar evolution as an atheist conspiracy is a bullshit move, and hardly speaks to "Huck's" integrity."

I agree that rejecting evolution as a whole is just plain idiotic. Certain tenets of evolution theory have been proven conclusively, and it is the best current naturalistic explanation for how life has evolved throughout our history. That point is not up for debate.

This however is not what Huckabee was saying:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3140255

Huckabee believes in a Creator. He rejects the idea that all life decended from a common ancestor. Basically, that means he rejects macroevolution. This isn't exactly a radical position amongst the general public. No macroevolutiuon theory has been able to explain the origins of life much farther than mere idle speculation. We have indirect evidence that supports the idea, but proof is a long... long way off... and that's assuming we find it at all.

Huckabee asserts in the article that it is "his job" to teach his kids about God and Creation, not the school's. I honestly don't understand where this diatribe of yours on Huckabee came from.

12/7/2007 12:47:56 PM

If you take into account special relativity; in the reference frame of god Earth could have been created in 6 days. However, science requires a little too much brain power then what the hard-core evangelicals could ever comprehend. Special Relativity and evolution are fictional made up babel as part of a conspiracy to discredit the church! Much easier is to reject science hard to understand and blindly accept scripture written 1000's of years ago that has been manipulated from edition to edition by monks until mass printing became available.

12/7/2007 12:52:29 PM

Quote :

"Huckabee believes in a Creator. He rejects the idea that all life decended from a common ancestor. Basically, that means he rejects macroevolution. This isn't exactly a radical position amongst the general public. No macroevolutiuon theory has been able to explain the origins of life much farther than mere idle speculation. We have indirect evidence that supports the idea, but proof is a long... long way off... and that's assuming we find it at all."

We have support of speciation. When the question comes to the ultimate origin of life, then no, we don't have conclusive evidence. This isn't the point. Huckabee didn't even bother trying to make a distinction between the two - in fact, he answers the question, he specifically connects the whole of evolutionary theory to complete and utter Richard Dawkins militant atheism. As in, Evolution leaves no room for God, all life is a historical accident, game over. No room for a middle ground of accommodation between religious belief and science.

Reading it over again, I don't think he has the hostility of some fundamentalist types. But I do think he sees things in a mind-numbingly, exclusive fashion - "either/or." Evolution Rules Out God.

Look, Huck, you can believe in God all you want and that God created the universe, but don't be such a dolt to reject the notion of natural selection and the origin of species. That kind of critical reasoning skill is somewhat useful to the job of being president.

Quote :

"Huckabee asserts in the article that it is "his job" to teach his kids about God and Creation, not the school's. I honestly don't understand where this diatribe of yours on Huckabee came from."

Huckabee is pulling a classic move out of the evangelical playbook of associating "Evolution" with "Atheism." The fact that he's not running for school board president is relevant, but the fact that he would so blatantly resort to such cheap, populist anti-science tactics on such a simple question speaks volumes to his credibility in how he would handle other science-based issues. Not unlike our current president...

But fine. Re-reading the ABC article, I'll cut the Huck a little slack - he doesn't expect schools to teach creationism in place of evolution, and fine. I still think he's a jackass who flatly rejects established science, although he is perhaps not as militant about enforcing his views as say, others. Nonetheless, it speaks volumes to his critical reasoning skills.

[Edited on December 7, 2007 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2007 1:28:04 PM

he apparently does think schools should teach intelligent design, which is nearly as retarded.

12/7/2007 2:56:34 PM

Well, whether you agree with him or not, at least he tells you how he feels. That's more than I can say about most other candidates. Even though I disagree with a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, I respect the man because I can see that he actually believes in what he says. Same for Huck.

That being said, I don't think a candidate's religion should be that big of an issue. He has clearly stated that he isn't interested in pressing his views on others.

12/7/2007 3:05:37 PM

Quote :

"Look, Huck, you can believe in God all you want and that God created the universe, but don't be such a dolt to reject the notion of natural selection and the origin of species. "

I'd really like to see a source citing Huckabee "rejecting" natural selection. Really.

Quote :

"Huckabee is pulling a classic move out of the evangelical playbook of associating "Evolution" with "Atheism.""

Huckabee is a politician. He's a christian conservative politician. He's not going to say he "believes" in evolution. He believes in God and intelligent design. This is not a rejection of evolution as a whole. You're arguing against a dichotomy between evolution and religion that doesn't exist. Please stop, it's giving me a headache.

Quote :

"I still think he's a jackass who flatly rejects established science"

And what established science would that be?

Take a deep breath dude. You're hatin' on this guy like he owes you money or something

12/7/2007 5:44:03 PM

Quote :

"I'd really like to see a source citing Huckabee "rejecting" natural selection. Really."

He flat out said that he doesn't accept evolution as the mechanism by which life came to be. Last time I checked, natural selection was the chief vehicle through which speciation worked. Again, look at his quote - he explicitly rejects the notion that humans have evolved from apes. What exactly else are you looking for?

Quote :

"Huckabee is a politician. He's a christian conservative politician. He's not going to say he "believes" in evolution. He believes in God and intelligent design. This is not a rejection of evolution as a whole. You're arguing against a dichotomy between evolution and religion that doesn't exist. Please stop, it's giving me a headache."

Intelligent design is not evolution.
Intelligent design is not science.

The person arguing for a dichotomy between religion and evolution is Huckabee. It is therefore perfectly germane to point this out, and point out how bogus it is. Believing in evolution does not automatically preclude the existence of a divine entity - just ask the Catholic Church circa John Paul II - even they concede a place for evolution.

Quote :

"And what established science would that be?"

Do we really need to have an evolution debate in here? Really?

Quote :

"Take a deep breath dude. You're hatin' on this guy like he owes you money or something"

This guy may actually occupy the White House. And we've seen what eight years of someone who doesn't exactly have a fondness for science can do for policy.

12/7/2007 6:02:21 PM

Quote :

"He flat out said that he doesn't accept evolution as the mechanism by which life came to be."

Which is perfectly acceptable, and a position many people (including me) take. He believes God started it all. This is a rejection of macroevolution, not microevolution, which everyone except the extreme fundamentalists already accept. You can believe in natural selection but not accept that humans descended from apes. You're trying to prove he's rejecting evolution wholesale, and he's not.

Quote :

"Intelligent design is not science."

And I agree. It does not belong in a science classroom, and I don't support anyone that believes otherwise.

Quote :

"Do we really need to have an evolution debate in here? Really?"

No, because we're not talking about the same thing. The only one lacking an understanding of evolution in this discussion is you.

12/7/2007 7:20:39 PM

Pig Farmers for Gomer '08!

Aren't the Republicans tired of this hokey crap? Goldwater had to wrest the party away from eastern liberals in 1964. Who is going to save it from the populist-theocrats?

12/7/2007 8:23:22 PM

Quote :

" Good thing you weren't around during the American Revolution. That whole project was rife with "Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt" Americans at their core truly love beating the odds."

Yes, but the American Revolution was actually worthwhile. Speaking of -- how's that whole Iraq War thing faring in the polls among us odds-beating Americans?

Or do you self-professed Libertarians only deal in Anachronisms 101?

Quote :

" Critics label the prebate as an entitlement."

Just semantics. The government is pre-emptively sending checks from its coffers to millions of people regardless of their individual contributions to society. And it's based on some byzantine formula cooked up in a Treasury building about the acceptable standard of living is this year.

Sounds like an entitlement to me! Just wait -- year one, simple prebate. Year two, Congress starts adding "incentives" to the prebate for "certain" families.

Quote :

" Most States already have a sales tax system that seems to work fine."

Most States also have income tax systems that work just fine, too. Speaking of which Mr. Libertarian, once the the Federal government enacts this "one low tax for everybody," what stops the states from jacking up their individual income tax rates to take in the difference? I can think of a few blue states (like one I currently live in) that wouldn't mind a little more revenue on the backs of "the rich" who are newly freed from their "fair share" of the tax burden.

And don't even get me started on the whole "simultaneous repeal of the sixteenth amendment" thing that's necessary for this system to work. LOL! What are you guys smoking! It MUST be good!

12/7/2007 9:15:46 PM

Quote :

"Which is perfectly acceptable, and a position many people (including me) take. He believes God started it all. This is a rejection of macroevolution, not microevolution, which everyone except the extreme fundamentalists already accept. You can believe in natural selection but not accept that humans descended from apes. You're trying to prove he's rejecting evolution wholesale, and he's not."

Do you even know what the difference between the two is? Because I'm going to guess you don't, based upon your use of the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

The question of where life began and how different species came to be from other species are two different things. Despite your pretensions of erudite understanding, you're managing to fail miserably at grasping this simple point.

Trying to quibble over whether new species have evolved into divergent other species is macroevolution. Rejecting macroevolution means rejecting the notion that any new species has ever come about as a result of changes below the species level (microevolution).

Questions as to the ultimate origin of life may be beyond us, as in, "Where and how did life begin?" and one can make certain allowances for differences, but the fact that species change is a question of settled science. Don't believe me? Have a look at the fossil record. Help yourself to a book. There's a mountain of evidence to the fact, and just because you (or Mr. Huckabee) don't want to trouble yourself with actually doing a little bit of reading doesn't render the whole of science incorrect. (Don't strain yourself with those links, now.)

This is the same science which Huckabee rejects wholesale.

Quote :

"No, because we're not talking about the same thing. The only one lacking an understanding of evolution in this discussion is you."

Then, ah... why is it that you don't even demonstrate the slightest bit of insight about the issue at hand? (Right, that must be my failure to "get" it.)

12/7/2007 9:38:10 PM

Quote :

"how's that whole Iraq War thing faring in the polls among us odds-beating Americans? "

Well it's not really over yet is it? Anyway...my opinion on this war is borrowed from one of my favorite flicks:

"the only winning move ... is not to play"

Quote :

"The government is pre-emptively sending checks from its coffers to millions of people "

But please remember that the gov't would be taking in much more each month in sales tax.

Quote :

"Congress starts adding "incentives" to the prebate for "certain" families. ..what stops the states from jacking up their individual income "

Ahh.. we're playing "what if"...well for each of your negative scenarios, I could come up with a positive one. Again..the winning move is not to play.

12/7/2007 10:29:31 PM

i like it when you guys say "spend less"

it makes me giggle

12/7/2007 10:32:44 PM

Quote :

"Do you even know what the difference between the two is?"

I mistakenly used macroevolution to describe theories on the origins of life. My bad.

Even still, rejecting the idea that humans evolved from apes is hardly evidence of rejecting evolution as a whole. More extreme than the majority... probably... but I hardly think it warrants the hateful rhetoric you've continually spouted.

12/8/2007 2:11:26 AM

You may have noticed that the reason I've so virulently attacked Huckabee is not because he refuses to accept science, but because he makes a cheap attack on science by conflating it with atheism - i.e., believing in evolution means believing God has no place in the universe.

It may just be due to his own unsophistication, but frankly, it's an offensive tactic used by Evangelicals to try and create an "Us vs. Them" attitude toward science which impedes actual understanding and reconciliation of the two.

12/8/2007 10:55:56 AM

Quote :

"what stops the states from jacking up their individual income tax rates to take in the difference"

This is a good thing in my opinion. I think more power needs to be in the hands of the state. I think many exisiting social programs would be better off with the smaller buecracy being operated on the state level not the federal.

12/8/2007 2:01:57 PM

As a religious person, I feel that both science and god together are part of the total picture. Saying that evolution didnt happen means that you are saying that you know for a fact that god didnt use evolution as a means/method to "creating" humans as they are on earth.

I think limiting gods possibilities/powers by saying that something DID NOT happen, is totally against the creed that this minister stands behind, which goes back to god being incomprehensible yadda yadda yadda.

12/8/2007 2:20:17 PM

Quote :

"This is a good thing in my opinion. I think more power needs to be in the hands of the state. I think many exisiting social programs would be better off with the smaller buecracy being operated on the state level not the federal."

Not to mention the fact that it would stop the state subsidization going on currently. States like Alabama and Mississippi and Wyoming would stop being subsidized by California and Texas and New York taxpayers.

[Edited on December 8, 2007 at 2:34 PM. Reason : /]

12/8/2007 2:28:54 PM

Quote :

"You may have noticed that the reason I've so virulently attacked Huckabee is not because he refuses to accept science, but because he makes a cheap attack on science by conflating it with atheism - i.e., believing in evolution means believing God has no place in the universe."

As I said before, you haven't cited sufficient evidence to make this claim. I think you're overreacting to what you perceive to be another christian conservative pandering to evangelicals. I don't share your concern that Huckabee is W - part 2 - in regards to using social conservatism to avoid talking about "the real issues." I honestly don't care if he's a man of faith. I do care whether he'll run the country properly.

12/8/2007 3:46:27 PM

Quote :

" But please remember that the gov't would be taking in much more each month in sales tax. "

So? Justifying a welfare program by connecting it to some revenue stream still doesn't make it anything but an entitlement. One might argue, then, that any welfare program that exists today is just the government "rebating" any future taxes those people might pay into the system to make up for their poverty level today.

Obviously, then, the FairTax is just a liberal, feel-good, flat-tax alternative designed to be a straw-man position for idiots like Huckabee who don't want to commit to meaningful reform.

Quote :

"States like Alabama and Mississippi and Wyoming would stop being subsidized by California and Texas and New York taxpayers."

Gee, and here I was operating under the illusion that we have a federal system of government, a United States of America, that are brought together for the common welfare ... did anyone happen to notice that the whole foundation of our government is mutual support aka "subsidization?"

Having said that -- state governments are generally fly-by-night affairs run by semi-professional "citizen politicians" who are generally less effective as a whole than your average Home Owners' Association. I think the bleak reality is that states like California and New York -- economic power-houses in their own rights -- will slink into socialistic fervor without any real external constraints.

Personally I'm fine with the tax system as it is, so long as the money is spent on Constitutionally valid initiatives and the varying bureaucracies are well-run and fair-dealing. That requires nothing more than competent and effective administration at an executive level, which Huckabee certainly won't provide.

[Edited on December 8, 2007 at 5:53 PM. Reason : foo]

12/8/2007 5:52:30 PM

Quote :

"Gee, and here I was operating under the illusion that we have a federal system of government, a United States of America, that are brought together for the common welfare"

you thought wrong.

Contrary to the NAACP the Civil War was about States Rights NOT slavery. Slavery and the federal gov't stance prior to the war was only a small part of the list of grievances. Slavery if nothing else was used for propraganda and a rallying point to sway public opinion in the north toward support the war.

12/8/2007 7:39:37 PM

what the fuck

12/8/2007 9:34:37 PM