Yeah Rob, stop “raging”.

That’s two fellow Say Anything conservatives, in one day, claiming that you’re somehow enraged because you insist on keeping fiscal concerns over religious ones.

Now the resident Bible preacher is telling you that atheism and agnosticism doesn’t really exist. He says this right before he’ll tell you to respect his theological views. The irony is lost on the guy.

Then comes the claims of “hate”.

What a joke.

Don’t worry, next week they’ll flip flop and praise you for being so tolerant to their religious views. It’s been this way for awhile now at this blog. You’re either full of “hate” for Christianity or you’re incredibly tolerant. There’s no middle ground with some of these believers.

I think both sides suffer from that fear to one extent or the other:
“If Huckabee, Romney, Paul takes the nomination, the Democrats win!”

“If Hillary, Obama, Edwards takes the nomination, the Republicans win!”

Pick your poison!

If a Republican wins, America loses
If a Democrate wins, maybe, just maybe America wins.

Q)If a Socialist thinks a thought in a forest, and no one is there to observe it, is is still shallow and laughable?

A)Trick question! Socialists don’t think!

an expansion that lasted exactly 10 years

That started during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush while Clinton, Serpenthead and Company were telling the American people what a lousy economy it was:

It’s the economy, stupid!

Yeah. Right!

Are you aware that your avatar is considered by most to be one of the worst movies ever made?

Shill: Are you aware that my avatar is a joke? Much like your support for that Mormon with the illegal alien problem! What was his name again Shill?
Maybe you’ve got a poll you can refer to or someone else’s opinion to back you up?

BTW, attacking my avatar shows you’ve given up ever hoping to counter any of the facts I’ve presented or any of my arguments.
Have you also given up your slurs of War Hero John McCain?

Three words for you Shill: Pa___thet____ic!

In the same way that the Dems tried to produce defeat for us in Iraq, and against terrorism in general by refusing to pull together for victory, squabbling among Republicans will result in our defeat in ‘08. This is more than simply an election defeat, though; it will undoubtedly be a defeat of our way of life. Expect higher taxes, the punishment of success, massive redistribution of income, pandering to the terrorists of the world, and persecution of conservatives in the form of various permutations of the “Fairness Doctrine” to remove all diversity of opinion from the public forum. A Dem victory would be only the beginning of a very long nightmare for freedom and individuality.

No one could have said this better! It needs to be said often until the next election cycle. A Democrat victory scares the crap out of me, all their candidates are unabashed socialists.

Oooh…oooh… Did someone say Global Crossing?

How about Terry McAuliffe for Commerce Secretary? Now that we don’t have Ron Brown to kick around anymore.

Oh, sorry.

Just look at how fiscally responsible this new guy is.
What a true conservative role model.
Just like Raygun.
Why can’t we find more like him?

If a Republican wins, America loses
If a Democrate wins, maybe, just maybe America wins.

Huckabee is precisely what the Christian Taliban have been looking for – a fundamentalist who is bent on merging church and state.

Socialist,

Why don’t you explain for us just what is this “Seperation of Church and State”?

Notice to any new SA commenter: anybody who isn’t a Christian believer will be labeled a hater of Christianity. There is no tolerance here.

It didn’t used to be that way. It really didn’t. Let it be stated for the record that the majority of Christians here at this fine website really are tolerant with athiesm, agnosticism, and any other belief that doesn’t call for a lopped off head. Don’t let one or two bad apples paint the entire picture, but be forewarned if deciding to wade into the swamp.

shill, Deathcar was nowhere near the worst movie ever made. It was in fact so bad it was hilarious, though not as hilarious as the numbnuts politician you shill for. He takes the booby prize in the hilarity category.

What in the world is “Reaganesque” about Huckabee? His tax hikes? His nanny-statism? His support for big government?

“Reaganesque” means more than being good behind the microphone.

Rob,

There is nothing Reaganesque about Huckabee. My point wasn’t about Huckabee, but that without such a candidate the party will likely not return to its consevative roots.
I know that Thompson is the best and only conservative candidate running, that is why I’m voting for him. I just don’t see that inspiring leadership which can rally republicans around conservatism.

Was that the George Herbert Walker Bush administration that raised taxes…yeah, I though so.

And then there is his humping of women other than his wife thingy.

You will be waiting a long time on that, HG. Fascist/FTS can’t even pick a webpage address to use, it damn well is incapable of rational thought.

Forget next week, the claim of tolerance has come a mere 24 minutes after the claim that you’re trying to “to build fires of hate against Christians without any justification whatsoever”.

The claims of “hate” still flow freely from this man who endorses Jesus.

Go figure.

Some people are just confused. They can’t even begin to practice what they preach.

But what do I know? Pointing out what has been said only means I have my “nose so far up Rob’s rectum”. This insult, of course, comes from the guy who just got done calling for tolerance. If that bit of irony doesn’t make you laugh…

And with abortion – he simply says, “It’s not the President’s job to declare abortion legal or illegal, that is a matter for the courts, and the courts have spoken,”

Where did he say that? I couldn’t find it on the Internet.

In any regard, it’s a matter for the legislature, not the courts.

Our problems are: Islamic extremism and the shifting post-cold-war security environment, and a return to fiscal discipline, pronto. All the other crap can wait four years until we get a handle on these.

Right on.

It will never happen though. I doubt that this nation is going to get a handle on the national security anytime soon (just witness the tenuous grasp we have with it now with our often treasonous opposition party) and this nation’s government will never get a handle on fiscal discipline. It is against government’s nature.

rbb: As usual, your rampant BDS is showing.

PS, the new Newsweek Poll in Iowa with Huck 22 points ahead is a joke. The sample only included 270 people.

And it was done by Newsweek. We may as well believe polls done by Pravda.

The thing that makes me most nervois about Huckabee is that the MSM LOOOVES him so much and I know they HAAAATE Conservatism. So how is it they love someone who supposedly represents what they hate unless they have an ulterior motive?

This Huckabee surge strikes me as surreal and ephemeral. Bass-playing, sweet Mike Huckabee?! God help us if we ever elect a bass player. Mike Hukabee makes the impression any good mild minister of the church makes – not exactly the impression I’d want the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America to make.

I agree with the poster who said American politics is moving from the 50/50 nation to a renewed sense of Pragmatism. In my view, the candidate who fits this most closely is Giuliani. The guy is essentially indifferent to “social issues” – which I think is perfect since I don’t think the government should be in the business of administering these. For example, I don’t think he’s concerned about “guns” per se, I think he looked at NYC in the mid-late 90s and simply asked: “well, in view of the avilable information, would it be better or worse if guns were more or less controlled in the South Bronx and Bed-Sty?” Since I am not an ideologue either, that’s how I want my executive to look at a problem – within the boundaries established by the Constitution, of course. And with abortion – he simply says, “It’s not the President’s job to declare abortion legal or illegal, that is a matter for the courts, and the courts have spoken,” implying, “I will not waste my time inveighing against this domestic Palestine/Isreal.” Or, as he said when asked about the military’s don’t ask don’t tell policy, “Don’t you think there would be a better time than the present to raise that issue, eh?” He’s unapologetically hawkish, with a plain view of Islamic civilization, or at least its principal players. A large part of his campaign speeches concerns how he will maintain low taxes and streamline the government as much as possible. He is generally an excellent debater. His immigration policy is more liberal than the anti-immigration movement, it is true, but this is an emerging domestic Palestine/Israel and will probably have to be handled to less than everyone’s (anyone’s) satisfaction.

Whoever wins, they will be at the helm of a ship in mid-sail. The course has as little to do with abortion and gun control as it does with health care and entitlements. Our problems are: Islamic extremism and the shifting post-cold-war security environment, and a return to fiscal discipline, pronto. All the other crap can wait four years until we get a handle on these.

Still trying to push the Clinton recession crap, huh?

On November 26, 2001, the committee determined that the peak of economic activity had occurred in March of that year. For a discussion of the committee’s reasoning and the underlying evidence, see http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001. The March 2001 peak marked the end of the expansion that began in March 1991, an expansion that lasted exactly 10 years and was the longest in the NBER’s chronology.

This will be an election about two things:

1. Who has the experience (competence).
2. Who has the ideas.

America is moving away from clear-cut “conservatism” vs “liberalism” to “what-works-ism”.

America is sick and tired of the “right vs left” squabbling and spinning in Congress. They are saying “who cares what your political philosophy is, just fix this!”.

The candidate who can communicate THAT is the candidate that will win the White House.

Rob: I agree with how you made your point this time!

If Huckabee is good on religion and that’s important to you then great. It’s not important to me, but let’s move beyond that and look at his atrocious record on taxes, nanny statism and big government.

I said I would not vote for Huckabee, because I think he is a wolf in sheeps clothing, he is not a true conservative on too many issues for my tastes. He has some very poor posititions on many issues. Like most Christians, I want to look at the whole man and if Thompson supports causes that are important to Christians, like anti-abortion and has other solid conservative credentials he is far preferable to Huckabee.

When you speak about people having a high priority on Christian issues and a candidate with faith in a negative light, it turns off people that might otherwise agree with you and that was my entire objection to how you framed the Christian issue.

Keep your irritation at Christians in your threads to a minimum, balance them with your appeal to examine everything the candidate stands for and as Robert108 made the point, let’s elect a Republican to the White House and the Congress in 2008.

I honestly don’t get it.

Why the fear? Huckabee will be a good President.

He beats the poop out of Clinton because he strips the middle out.

He beats Edwards because people consider Edwards a slimeball and Huckabee makes him look stupid. The squeamish middle goes for Huckabee and Hucabee wins.

The only reason Huckabee might lose in a general election would be against Obama. Obama carries the middle and the left and I think Hucabee loses.

This has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with a man who appeals for reasons that people will vote for him.

I’m confused by a comment about voting because of Jesus. Jesus is not a reason but it can be a tipping point.

If I had two people of equal qualification, equal ability, equal political positions, BUT the only difference was one was a profession Christian and I believed him or her and one was an avowed atheist. Which do you think I would vote for?

Then it’s about religious convictions and nothing else that’s wrong. But religious convictions can be a deal breaker or maker.

Huckabee is precisely what the Christian Taliban have been looking for – a fundamentalist who is bent on merging church and state.

Christians ARE NOT looking for nor do they desire a Theocracy in the United States. Except for rare extremists as there are in every organization, Christians have no relationship whatsoever to the Taliban in thought or deed and only someone with severe BDS woulds ever suggest such insane, inane nonsense.

Ron Paul is not a conservative, he is a Libertarian and couldn’t get elected dog catcher because his views are so extreme.

All of your comments are the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind!

Hissy fit? So, because fiscal conservatives like me might refuse to vote against their principals, that’s “throwing a hissy fit?”

You have raged many, many times on this blog about Christians refusing to vote against their Christian beliefs and not voting for Republicans that are weak in the matter of faith. Sounds hypocritical to me!

All you crying atheists and agnostics (there is no such thing) are throwing a hissy fit about Christians and Huckabee, when I am a Christian and I do not support Huckabee; and very few Christians I know do support him or would refuse to even vote for a reprobate like Rudy rather than allow Hillary becoming president.

Rob is building a strawman here and trying to recruit others to build fires of hate against Christians without any justification whatsoever. Not just this thread, but in many threads of his creation he finds ways to attack Christians and then he is surpised when Christians react and decide not to support the non-candidate of his choosing, Freddy Thompson.

Despite the Constitutional prohibition of any religious litmus test for Presidential candidates, the fact is, Americans from our very beginning have applied such a test when they preferred and voted only for people with faith in God and having some belief in Judeo-Christian morality. Granted, many of our Presidents and presidential candidates only mouth faith in God and support for Judeo-Christian moral and spiritual values; but voters, most voters, prefer a person of faith leading our country.

This constant harangue by Rob against people of faith when it comes to elections is tiresome, hypocritical and I believe counter-productive to the idea of our defeating Hillary or Obama or the Breck Girl; as such constant carping about people of faith in matters of elections will only turn Christians off and encourage more and more of them to sit out elections and that result will insure Democrat control of the White House and Congress for decades, if not forever.

It is sad that in the case of elections, Rob abandons his usual fair and tolerant approach to people of faith, in favor of attacking them if they don’t vote his way.

Bill Mitchell: Correction. This will be an election about ONE thing: WHO GETS THE MOST ELECTORAL VOTES.
Conservatives in these United States have a history of sitting on their principles and refusing to vote while the liberals win. The ’06 congressional elections saw huge gains by the democrats because republicans were in sulk-mode. Result? We now have Pelosi and Reid in charge of Capitol Hill and a host of republican congressmen bailing out because they can smell a greater defeat coming. Lets face it; true conservatism will always be the minority bloc; indeed a very small bloc. So, one could ask, why bother at all? Answer: The fewer of us who vote, the weaker our voice becomes and the greater the latitude which liberals presume they have. I support Guiliani and Romney precisely because they have demonstrated that they can achieve some conservative goals while faced with a liberal majority. But, I will vigorously support whichever candidate becomes the Republican standard-bearer because I want some conservative gains – however small – and I do not want Clinton, Obama, Edwards or Gore in the White House. Self-imposed conservative nihilism gains us and our nation nothing. The choice may be painful, but it is imperative!

Neiman, what do you mean when you say that there is no such thing as an agnostic? I consider myself to be agnostic, and always appreciate the wisdom of those who feel that they can tell me what I *really* believe.

See what he just told me?

He puts you into the same boat.

Not too nice, is it?

It’s like a religious grenade. Neiman throws them anytime the discussion is brought up. It’s all hate, all the time with the guy. He’s quick to claim it in non-believers.

I think he’s just describing himself half of the time. Especially the part where he claims this person or that person has emotional problems.

The only thing that really expanded during the Clinton administration was the power, reach and membership of Al Qaeda, culminating in 9/11.

A Dem victory would be only the beginning of a very long nightmare for freedom and individuality.

And what makes you think a victory for Mike “National Smoking Ban” Huckabee would be any different? Because he says the right things about religion?

Please.

Remember your CS Lewis:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

So Fiscal conservatives are going to stay home and not vote because they would rather HILLARY get the Presidency than Huckabee or Romney? You may in fact be correct in stating it, but talk about throwing a hissy fit…

Hissy fit? So, because fiscal conservatives like me might refuse to vote against their principals, that’s “throwing a hissy fit?”

Give me a break.

I vote for the candidate, not the party. And I’m sick of trying to figure out who the lesser of two evils is.

Not voting for a candidate who isn’t 100% on your side never helps to advance your cause, it ALWAYS hurts it.

I realize that “the perfect is the enemy of the good,” but Huckabee is a horrible candidate. Really, really awful.

I could hold my nose and vote for Giuliani. Maybe even Romney. But Huckabee?

Why on earth are we putting up a nanny state candidate who likes to raise taxes?

It just seems to me that to get elected our candidates should be conservative. And being conservative means more than loving baby Jesus.