|
|
| Posted: 25 Sep 2007 20:13 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=557
Former Arkansas Governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says he wants to avoid "horizontal politics," referring to the endless political attacks made by politicians. Instead, he favors "vertical politics" that "uplift the country." To this end and as a way to boost his campaign, Huckabee announced "Vertical Day," a 24-hour effort to share with voters "our ideas, our hopes for America and the challenges facing us."
Mike's site
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 25 Sep 2007 20:26 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Sounds good. Shame it can't be that way the whole parade.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 25 Sep 2007 20:48 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
Huckabee has come off as a very reasonable and pretty thoughtful conservative. Because of that, he won't get the nod.
Reasonable and thoughtful are like kryptonite in the GOP primaries.
|
| Posted: 25 Sep 2007 20:58 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
I seriously like Huckabee, and I don't agree with the first thing he stands for.
But I do like the way he does business. He has repeatedly atempted to bring people together and do away with this red/blue nonsense.
His opinions on social issues are not mine, but he doesn't seem to enjoy pushing things on everybody- he seems aware that a President can't just govern one half of the country.
And consequently, Democrats like me are willing to listen.
If the rest of the GOP were taking this approach- they'd be wiping the floor with the current crop of D's. As it is, they're going to come off as such jerks- they might even lose to Hillary Clinton.
|
| Posted: 25 Sep 2007 21:05 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I can't find anything wrong with the guy to disagree with you all over. I'd be happy if he or Fred Thompson got the nomination. I wouldn't be surprised to see Fred pick Huckabee as vice-president if he get's the nod. Of course you never can tell, perhaps Huckabee can beat out Guiliani. I'm not going to vote for Guiliani in the primary. That much I know. I'd still vote for him over Hillary of course.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 25 Sep 2007 22:59 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
We've been given a handful of gloosy resumes so far. I'm gonna hold my judgement on this a bit.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 02:30 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 183
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
We've been given a handful of gloosy resumes so far I totally agree wait till next summer or spring whateverthen see what the nuckleheads are saying and doing
__________________ i'm telling you the MOAB will solve all our problems  |
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 04:04 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Huckabee lost my support when he suggested a national smoking ban wouldn't be such a bad idea. I hate smoking with a passion, but the last thing we need is another nanny state program to protect me from myself.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 04:57 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Another fine case of trying to legislate behavior...
Maybe each of us should pick a candidate to watch over with ads or new info or debates and articles and such. We see enough of one of these knuckleheads talking and we can get a rough idea of what they're really about instead of what their pretty speeches and pretty commercials are trying to convey.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 15:22 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Another fine case of trying to legislate behavior...
Yeah, that's an area where I've done a lot of soul-searching in the last 10 years or so. As much as I'd like everybody to just do the right thing naturally, life doesn't work that way. So I had to cypher out for myself whether or not someone has a right to harm someone else. Of course they don't, and it's a legitimate function of government to punish fraud and abuse (all though they seem to specialize in propogating it).
So does someone have the right to harm themselves? Well, that comes down to the basic question of who owns you. Do you own you or does society own you? If you own you, then as long as you're not hurting anyone else, the state has no business stepping in. That includes stopping people from doing things that I happen to find foolish and distateful, like smoking.
Following that philosophy to it's logical conclusion, I cannot reasonably support seatbelt laws, helmet laws, smoking bans, or most of the war on drugs, although I don't like drugs, smoking, or cracked skulls and busted windshields.
As an addendum, people that care about you I still think have every right to try to persuade you that what you're doing is harmful and foolish. You have the right to ignore them. I am a preacher, and part of my job is to deal with people about their bad behavior and try to help them get out of that cycle. I cannot force them, and neither should I be able to. I do not have the right to use your tax dollars to make the state stop them.
Of course the other end of that is that if you continue in your foolish behavior and you wreck your life and your health, then you have no right to demand that we as a society or me as a taxpayer pay to put you back together again.
How I got all of that out of Mike Huckabee, I'll never know.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 15:50 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
I don't think people shouldn't be told what to do in privacy. But I'm all for smoking bans in public places … not outside, but inside. Secondhand smoke … smoke in general … is bad for people, and nonsmokers shouldn't be subjected to it.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 16:42 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Secondhand smoke … smoke in general … is bad for people, and nonsmokers shouldn't be subjected to it.
That is an excellent point, Captain, although I genrally agree with you (its never a good idea to set something on fire and then stick it in your mouth and exposure to any kind of smoke probably isn't good for you), the anti-smoking zealots have used that as a battering ram to shout down those of us who advocate individual choice and responsibility.
I also think the research on the effects of secondhand smoke is a bit inconclusive, but that's just me.
A sensible solution, I think , at least with private businesses is to allow the business owner to retain his right to make his establishment smoking or non. The public will migrate towards the establishments more conducive with their lifestyle.
Once you get in the business of saving people from themselves, it never stops. Pretty soon you have to ban trans-fatty foods and aluminum baseball bats like they have in NY.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 16:52 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
I also think the research on the effects of secondhand smoke is a bit inconclusive, but that's just me.
A sensible solution, I think , at least with private businesses is to allow the business owner to retain his right to make his establishment smoking or non. The public will migrate towards the establishments more conducive with their lifestyle.
I do some part-time work in bars … and where smoking is allowed, I feel it; I know it is bad.
No, private businesses will generally do anything to make money. We regulate other aspects of health and safety: building codes, for instance. Why should smoking, which does negatively impact other folks' health be allowed?
Quote:
Once you get in the business of saving people from themselves, it never stops. Pretty soon you have to ban trans-fatty foods and aluminum baseball bats like they have in NY.
I'm with you there, ridiculous … smoking, however, does affect the people around the smoker.
What do you think about insurance companies charging smokers and fat people higher rates?
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 18:00 Last Edited By: preacher man |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
private businesses will generally do anything to make money
Yes, I agree and if they can draw a crowd by offering smoking, then they will, and vice versa. I do know business owners that have let their personal convictions be a part of how they run their business. Sometimes it's worked out, (the owner of Chick-Fil-A) and sometimes it doesn't (me in a former business venture). Either way the public gets to vote with their patronage dollars about where to go. In Georgia we let the owner decide and as a result, since my family doesn't like smoke, there's places we don't go. A business owner has a natural right to dictate how to run his establishment. To let the governemnt dictate even more and more of that under the guise of safety is inappropriate.
Quote:
What do you think about insurance companies charging smokers and fat people higher rates?
I must admit that despite my generally pro-business stances, I dislike insurance companies. That, however has nothing to do with the basic principles that a business should be able to do whatever they feel is necessary to return the greatest amount of profit to the shareholders/owners. That's why you start a business in the first place. If the insurance company feel that fat smokers are more of a risk, I think they are within their rights to refuse service to them, or charge them a higher rate, then that's a business decision. I wish them well, because they are taking a risk.
I think that one of the reasons you don't have more 'niche marketing' and innovation among insurance companies is that the industry is so highly regulated that its very difficult for anybody new to get on the field and offer any competition. Otherwise, I think you would probably have more companies that specialize in insuring more high risk people, if the market would bear it and the business model worked.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 18:13 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
A business owner has a natural right to dictate how to run his establishment. To let the governemnt dictate even more and more of that under the guise of safety is inappropriate.
Again, there are plenty of regulations. Smoking is a health risk to people around the smoker … but we can agree to disagree.
At the end of the day, smoking was socially acceptable for a long time, but the idea of smokers' rights in public places is laughable. They can smoke at home and outside, but people in the same room shouldn't be subjected to it.
I dislike them too: There's an inherent conflict of interest in profit and covering peoples' medical bills. I'm for government healthcare. Of course, I want the taxes that toward it well-spent, and I want oversight. But I think insurance for profit is screwjob for those in need.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 19:03 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Again, there are plenty of regulations.
I would say too many.Quote:
There's an inherent conflict of interest in profit and covering peoples' medical bills. I'm for government healthcare. Of course, I want the taxes that toward it well-spent, and I want oversight. But I think insurance for profit is screwjob for those in need.
I think you and I woudl be hard pressed to find a topic on which we more strongly disagree. But the good news is, I think you're going to get your wish.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 19:12 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
But the good news is, I think you're going to get your wish.
Me and the majority of Americans. And it ain't a done deal til it's a done deal.
Quote:
I would say too many.
Need 'em … without regulations, you get bad products, crappy working conditions, environmental damages, etc. Sure, it can go too far, but it's necessary.
Now, are there too many regulations against individuals? You bet.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 19:23 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
I want the taxes that toward it well-spent, and I want oversight.
Neither one of these seems to be governmental specialties.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 19:41 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
Neither one of these seems to be governmental specialties.
Especially republican governments, which run on the platform that government is bad. It's like hiring a house builder who says construction is crap.
The system ain't perfect, to be sure, but there are ways to make it better.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 21:03 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Especially republican governments, which run on the platform that government is bad.
Well quipped, Mr. Captain sir. But I will submit to you that lately (last 15 plus years), the Republican stance has been (unfortunately) "We won't ruin nearly as much stuff as those other guys!" One of the reasons I left the party.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2007 21:12 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
It is more than a quip: These guys always say government doesn't work. Then, they do their best to prove it.
Quote:
"We won't ruin nearly as much stuff as those other guys!"
The GOP of the last seven years? Oh, they've blown it far worse than any democratic government (or any republican government, for that matter) in our history.
|
| Posted: 27 Sep 2007 00:08 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
The GOP of the last seven years? Oh, they've blown it far worse than any democratic government (or any republican government, for that matter) in our history. Jimmy Carter, Nuff Said.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 27 Sep 2007 12:26 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
You know, CAptain, I have been carefully sconsidering your position and I want to make sure that I have I understand i tproperly. Please correct me if I'm wrong because the questions I have flow out of my understanding of how you look at this.
A)People have a right to hurt themselves, but not others. Smoking hurts both you and the people around you through secondhand smioke, so therefore it's not a right. Hence gummints are perfectly legitimized in banning smoking.
Have I got it so far? If I do, then...
1) Would you be in favor of a ban on smokeless tobacco products?
2) Does a business have a right to sell you a product that everybody with half a brain knows is slowly killing you?
3)Do you have a right to buy a product that you know is slowly killing you?
Just curious to see where you come down on this.
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 27 Sep 2007 19:35 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
1) Would you be in favor of a ban on smokeless tobacco products?
2) Does a business have a right to sell you a product that everybody with half a brain knows is slowly killing you?
3)Do you have a right to buy a product that you know is slowly killing you?
1) No, nor do I believe in banning cigs.
2) Yes, though I believe in warning labels, age restrictions, taxes, etc.
3) Yes. I also believe that drugs should be legal.
|
| Posted: 27 Sep 2007 21:59 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Yes. I also believe that drugs should be legal. I don't. So where do you draw the line? I've heard that meth is addictive with only one use, and from cops that those that use it on a regular basis tend to die within 5 years or so. I think stuff like that needs to be illegal.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 27 Sep 2007 22:08 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
Well, I've known enough people who've done meth and not been addicted, I'd say you're off.
Never done it myself. Not my thing.
But, in reality, where I live, I can say that it's easier for a minor to get meth than to get cigarettes.
|
| Posted: 28 Sep 2007 04:13 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1408
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
2) Yes, though I believe in warning labels, age restrictions, taxes, etc.
Kinda hard to label crack rock, don't you think? Hey here's a thought, if we really wanted to make sure that nobody got any drugs, put FEMA in charge of distributing them. Nobody would ever get any.
And to Tim...Quote:
I think stuff like that needs to be illegal. Based on what, though? It goes back to my question do you have the right to harm yourself? I think that the argument could be made that someone selling drugs is harming others, but the same could be said for someone selling Big Macs.
Boy, am I all over the map tonight or what?
__________________1 TIMOTHY 1
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
|
| Posted: 28 Sep 2007 07:23 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
So does someone have the right to harm themselves? Well, that comes down to the basic question of who owns you. Do you own you or does society own you? If you own you, then as long as you're not hurting anyone else, the state has no business stepping in. That includes stopping people from doing things that I happen to find foolish and distateful, like smoking.
Following that philosophy to it's logical conclusion, I cannot reasonably support seatbelt laws, helmet laws, smoking bans, or most of the war on drugs, although I don't like drugs, smoking, or cracked skulls and busted windshields.
As an addendum, people that care about you I still think have every right to try to persuade you that what you're doing is harmful and foolish. You have the right to ignore them. I am a preacher, and part of my job is to deal with people about their bad behavior and try to help them get out of that cycle. I cannot force them, and neither should I be able to. I do not have the right to use your tax dollars to make the state stop them.
Of course the other end of that is that if you continue in your foolish behavior and you wreck your life and your health, then you have no right to demand that we as a society or me as a taxpayer pay to put you back together again.
See, now this is the type of thinking I really appreciate from the right. This is why Barry Goldwater was an important historical figure. Do I think there needs to be a counterbalance to it all, like Cap has been advocating- absolutely- but I am glad there is a growing trend toward libertarianism.
Though either party could go there, I think it is a more natural fit for the Republican party. When I think of where the Democrats need to go- I think of an establishment progressive- someone who can inspire the country to get above the fray and pull together.
When I think republicans are at their best, they're saying "Don't Tread On Me" and fighting for conservative rights as defined in THIS country- not conservative by the standards of Hobbes or Edmund Burke, who felt you should just listen to the king, because order is important. Instead, I like libertarians who fight with the values of Samuel Adams, who sat at a bar with a bunch of other angry drunks and talked s*^%# until they decided to dress up like Indians and throw all the government's tea in the river. I like libertarians who feel that this country was at its best when people relied on themselves because the government was distant and they liked it that way. That sort of thing is important, and though all our founding fathers were revolutionaries (read criminals and terrorists, if you're British)- that sort of thing isn't really Jefferson's style.
Therefore, it just comes off bad when the same people who tell you you're free of big brother because they don't tax rich investors anymore, have built a bridge to nowhere in Alaska and started a quagmire in Iraq with your money. What would Sam Adams do?
When I run into former Republicans who are angry about their party turning into some sort of bizzaro version of 70's democrats I'm happy. Not because they're losing ground, but because they're getting back to being the effective counterweight that they need to be. I want good opposition to the Democrats. I hang out with these people. I know how they can get carried away.
For instance, I'm a Democrat and I'm one of the few people I know who can smoke a cigarette today and not care if I never see another as long as I live. I think cigarettes are fun, they go great with alcohol, but they are best used occasionally- otherwise, they'll ruin your ability to go running and might hurt your health. Simple as that. The warning on the side of the box that says they'll kill ya if you over do it is enough for me.
But that's me. My party, if carrying their logic to conclusion, somewhere along the way is going to say that few people treat cigarettes this way, especially poor people- so use needs to be decreased by law in some way or another. And that is why I like heading to a bar in moderate to conservative VA way more than liberal DC. It drives me nuts to be driven out of a bar to smoke, because people drinking alcohol and eating fried appetizers are concerned for their health inside. And it isn't like I can take my beer outside the door- because a baby might see me drink or I might go nuts from the booze and make conversation with a pretty girl. Gee, thank you for saving me from myself.
Honestly, I appreciate the minimum wage, the weekend and the interstate- but could you guys please leave my occasional tendency to have fun out of this? No, because the Democrats are the do-gooders of the political world and that is important to have. But it is also important to have some serious counterweight to keep good intentions from getting out of control.
In the past few years- this has all been screwed up. Bush and the 109th Congress traded the libertarian streak for an attempt at constitutionally deterring gayness and somehow merged Vietnam and the Great Society program into Iraq while losing the actual war in Afghanistan. Then there was the free market fix for Katrina...
Not surprisingly, people started to wonder what they ever liked about the Republicans.
Honestly, I think there's plenty of good ideas available in either party. It just depends on who advocates what and when. If the Republicans could get Ron Paul's ideas to come out of Mitt Romney's mouth (doesn't seem too hard) then they could win, even with their candidate coming from Massachusetts.
But even then, the timing probably isn't right for libertarianism. The best thing that could happen is we get a operational fix Democrat like H Clinton or Obama (or Mark Warner, who i still think should have been the nominee) and a libertarian influenced Republican congress like the one in 94 who would make them work for it. That way- the government would have direction, but not get out of control. It can be done, it has been done- but like our founders noted- it takes checks and balances.
|
| Posted: 28 Sep 2007 15:39 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Well, I've known enough people who've done meth and not been addicted, I'd say you're off I'd say you'd be nuts to try it.
Quote:
It goes back to my question do you have the right to harm yourself? Pilgrim what about the kids that get hooked on those drugs? What about the kids' parents that can no longer take care of their own children? It's a heck of huge difference between eating a hamburger and taking an addictive mind altering drug.
And nobody ever smoked a cigerette and felt compelled to jump off a building. There has to be some common sense. This whole all or nothing attitude we have these days goes against our ability to reason. Just because we have laws against drugs doesn't mean we should regulate every other facet of human life like making people wear seat belts etc. There is a tendency to go too far on everything.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 28 Sep 2007 16:16 |
|
|
|
Captain America
|
|
|
Quote:
what about the kids that get hooked on those drugs?
again, it is easier to get something illegal than it is to buy cigs. drugdealers have no one to answer to, businesses do. you also takeaway criminal cartels' source of money.
Quote:
What about the kids' parents that can no longer take care of their own children?
Fact is, people abuse illegal pills all the time. People abuse alcohol. People smoke around kids, exposing them to dangerous second-hand smoke. There are always going to be bad parents.
Quote:
And that is why I like heading to a bar in moderate to conservative VA way more than liberal DC. It drives me nuts to be driven out of a bar to smoke, because people drinking alcohol and eating fried appetizers are concerned for their health inside.
Nah, you can go outside. If i want to eat fried jalapenos and drink beer, that's on me. But if you smoke and I have to inhale your carcinogenic exhale, that's on you. And you can go outside. I don't smoke cigs, and I don't want to inhale your smoke. I'm not forcing you to eat my fried jalapenos, or more appropriately, the waste I generate from them.
Not saving you from yourself, saving me from you.
Plus, most Va. bars stink.
|
|
