« Isn't it rich? Isn't it queer? | Main | i'll see your jackhole and raise you a....... »



Nice interview, jackass:

  • QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

  • HUCKABEE: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.


god damn you all to hell adam......

What about a woman and three men?

he's right: it was radical abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote.

it was TOTALLY radical.

*gives the "hang loose" sign*

also, he says:

"I don’t think a person has to be a person of faith to say that once you redefine a human life and say there is a life not worth living, and that we have a right to terminate a human life because of its inconvenience to others in the society. That’s the real issue. That’s the heart of it. It’s not just about being against abortion. It’s really about, Is there is a point at which a human life, because it’s become a burden or inconvenience to others, is an expendable life. And once we’ve made a decision that there is such a time – whether it’s the termination of an unborn child in the womb or whether it’s the termination of an 80-year-old comatose patient -- we’ve already crossed that line."

reading this, it's clear that he's strictly anti-war.


Not only that, he goes on to say:

It’s an issue that goes to the very heart of our civilization of all people being equal, endowed by their creator with alienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"Alienable"?? I think you mean INalienable, numbskull. But, if all people have a right to the pursuit of happiness, isn't that an argument in favor of legalizing gay marriage? I mean...unless homosexuals aren't actually people.

Maybe that's the point he's trying to make.

possibly better yet, on the same website--- the "God-O-Meter" which tells you how holy each candidate is.


yeah...i got six bits that says he and Gooliani are out by Florida.


At least he isn't as scary as Giuliani.

then there's Mitt...

Mitt supported gay marriage and abortion rights and other fun stuff the left generally sees as important when he was running for governor.

UNfortuantely, I'll also have to wager six bits that says he gets the nod.

clickit here.

That guy has lost alot of weight. I find that impressive, don't you?

This guy's fucking nuts!

Guys like this should make you want to get involved. Whomever wins this election will have an impact on you whether you like it or not. I would rather spend the next 8 years creating exciting new solutions.

I'd take the bet that Huckabee is out by/after Fla. I predict he'll be in AT LEAST till the super Tuesday votes. He may well win S. Carolina coming up, and is in a 4 way tie in Fla. The Rs are literally being eaten up over this as there are three different strands/types of republicans nowadays (social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and "security"/military conscious) and none of their candidates are "pure" enough to appeal across the lines. Thus you have McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. Unless something major happens Giuliani is toast, he is trying an unconventional primary strategy that is going to be hard to pull off. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the republican nomination isn't decided until the convention with a nice old floor fight, which they haven't had since about the 1940s. Traditionally the republicans have more or less had their candidate imposed from above, but Bush isn't doing squat this year in regards to this so the poor souls have to figure it out on their own.

My "out-on-a-limb" prediction is Mccain and Obama, with Obama wining the General by a narrow margin. But that could be completely wrong as this year is certainly going to be full of surprises

If it does come down to Obama and whoever, you will see Obama carry by a large margin. There is so much support for him amongst moderate Republicans that he could get a mandate of 60% or higher. Then we can fix what the selfish, whinny babyboomers have brought us.

Just keep those social security checks coming. LOL Yep your turn.

If I was Huckabee, I'd change my name to Applebees.

It never ceases to amaze me the level people fall to win a politican doesn't agree with their own personal idealogy. Name calling, cherry picking information, my canidate can beat up your canidate. The election is still 10 months away people. Don't you understand politicans pander to the masses the same way religious leaders do. Its their job. Now, except politics for what it is and grow up a little bit.

yes, we realize this, and therefore we must heckle them mercilessly for taking themselves so seriously.

Seriously, Of all the canidates Huckabee takes himself the least seriously. For Gods sake, he said on national t.v. he would take Colbert as a running mate. Do you think he was serious?

IMO, the last presidential candidate to not take himself seriously was Mickey Mouse.

listen steve, i take that fucker seriously. when the aids crisis was peaking in the 80's, he wanted to isolate/quarentine *cough* (nazi) all the gays. his son tortured and murdered a dog at boy scout camp. he wants to abolish abortion. he supports flying the conferderate flag. your godammned right i don't agree with his idiotology and i don't want someone of that LEVEL running the country. and further more i ACCEPT politics for what they are and that's why i'm flapping about it. oh yeah one more thing...i ain't never growing up!

So, if he doesn't take himself seriously why should people actually vote for him? Politics is serious business, there is no getting around it. When someone is elected as president who is basically unsuited for the job people suffer, real suffering. I generally tend to stay out of people's religion, except when it has a bearing on other peoples lives, and someone who uses religion as one of the cornerstones of why they should be elected is frankly delusional. Perhaps it will get you more or certain votes, but in reality what religion you are doesn't count for jack shit in how well you are in governance. Do we care if the dogcatcher is a Catholic? Do well care if the garbage man is Jewish? No, and we should not care if the president is Muslim, atheist, or Baptist. But it becomes such a big part of "who the candidate is" that people believe what religious organization you belong to should be how you vote. Look how well that worked the last time, we are now suffering from near 8 years of frankly incompetence, yet people want another bite.
I don't care that Huckabee use to be a Baptist minister, but I do care that he seems to want to transfer those intimate personal beliefs into national policy.

Hey, leave the guy's kid out of it.

On a side note, why do kids always have to wait until summer camp to experiment with killing animals? It's really complicated to deal with a 13 year old girl who crushes frogs for fun.

david huckabee was 17, not a kid when he committed the crime and his dad pressured law enforcement not to investigate. huckabee is a preacher who totes family values and that reeks like a steaming pile o crap to me.


Maybe you should listen caroline, their were alot of peopele behind alot of ideas in the 80s. The people in the quantine camp were the mild ones. Have you forgot about the virus accelerator proposals and who were behind them. Or maybe you are one of the people believes what they are told and what they read on the internet. You should go to work for one of the political parties in S.C. were you can say or print anything you want without proof or fact checking. (www.newsweek.com is not fact checking)

Hey Steve, I appreciate how c-freak gave us a link so we could find out more about huckabee. I wish you would have done the same for information about quarantine and virus accelerators.

Yeah, the idea of quarentining or isolating a virus that we knew very little about and thought at the time may be the next plauge, that was crazy. Instead we should a continued to let infected people have unprotected sex with mutipule partners. Not to mention not do anything about the arising of the "bug chaser" and "gift giver" culture.


*slaps quarantine sign on Ann*

huckabee on aids: www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/huckabee.aids/index.html


i won't do your fact checking for you on the dog snuff. it's everywhere on the internet, news etc. i don't believe everything i hear or read. all i'm saying is I think this guy stinks and these are some of my reasons why.

hbh, it's time for your silkwood shower.

except for pat robertson. i believe everything he says.

I wish C-Freak would run for President. Or at least mayor.

Mayor of Superior.

I guess if we are going to consider Huckabees son being envolved in the killing of a dog to be of importance to the presidental election because we can find that information on the internet we should also consider the evidence that the Clintons may have been directly involved in the killing of a human being. Or have we forgot about Vince Foster.

*slaps quarantine sign on thread*

Adam said: "Mayor of Superior".

Exquisite comic timing. Plus localized and subtle meaning. Suberb!

Where are these links Steve?

To information about the virus accelerators.

I would imagine that all you would have to do is “goggle” HIV accelerators. I have not done this search and will tell you why. After 10 years of using the internet as a research tool I have come to the conclusion along with many other that the internet is a realm of amateurs (of course there are some exceptions few and far between). The most impressive evidence (in my opinion) I have gathered over the years is by use of the freedom of information act or direct contact with the experts and information carriers that exist in ever community in this country. These are people who do not define themselves by blogs or social networking sites. They define themselves by direct knowledge and experience of the subject matter to be discussed.
The information I viewed on this subject came in a personal private meeting with a person who lives in this community. I will call this person X . Out of respect for this incredibly humble intelligent person I will keep their name and the names of others involved to myself.
Viewing the information X had on the proposals was basically a accident. At least that’s what I thought at the time. One of many mistakes I made over the years. I was looking for information on what I thought at the time was a different subject. I was wrong and X knew it. As a result I cannot state dates or numbers verbatim. Nor can I go back to X for more information. You see, I let this persons name slip once in casual conversation and X of course found out. X has refused to even acknowledge me since.
As it went. At some point in the mid to late 80s the C.D.C. was extremely concerned that HIV would mutate and become easily transmitted thru casual contact. They were concerned enough that they contacted experts for all over for ideas on how to deal with this virus. The experts ranged from religious leaders to scientists. But most were PhDs in subjects ranging from traditional medicine to veterinarian medicine. From sociology to philosophy. From biology to agriculture.
One of these PhDs was originally for here in Duluth and at that point in time was doing research I believe in Missouri. X worked with this Doctor in the early 90s on other projects and proved that they were in fact close friends a one time.
These individuals were asked to figure out how to deal with the problem and all options were applicable even setting moral and ethical values aside. The result was a common proposal from a number of theses scientist. Kill the host, kill the virus. Simple science.
A airborne accelerant. You breath it Monday your dead by Friday. If you carry the virus. A complete destruction of the virus in under ten days. Most said they could develop the agent in a period of time ranging from 12 to 18 months. And with the help of the military could release it worldwide in under 24 hours.
Of course it was shot down on moral grounds.
One of the comments. You may have to sacrifice 30,000 people now to save millions later.
Sounds crazy? Just the tip of the iceberg.

that's it. i stand firm in my vote now. steve for prez! he's all wordy and and what-not. it's the wordy ticket! his running mate? zra!!!!!!!! a shoe-in.

I can't run for president, I've smoked...ohh, nevermind.

Thank you for for the valuable insider information Steve!

(I could not find anything on the Internet about the virus accelerator. I searched many ways.)

But, what then separates out your story from speculative fiction? I appreciate what you say about parts of the internet being unreliable, but there are certainly areas that are just fine for citing. Just broadly dismissing the medium as nearly wholly unreliable and then offering cloaked story is nearly a circular argument. I don't discount its possibility, especially since I too have personal stories regarding people who work at the CDC.
Indeed what you are describing sounds like a simple brainstorming session wherein all ideas, no matter how outlandish, are initially presented and then in the next step things are whittled down to the ideas that have some merit. This stage is only one step above rumor when you consider the chain of events leading to public policy, and IF what you report is accurate then it doesn't deserve inclusion in any substantive discussion on what HIV policy was, or seriously could have been.

With Huckabee part of the problem that is arising is he, being in the position of policy enactment showed mightily poor judgement in his statements, which seem to be at least partially based on his religious beliefs. Perhaps these ideas where being discussed at some level, but to entertain the idea publicly without sufficient justification is reckless and negligent.

And regarding his son and the dog? I think the issue here is abuse of power, and hell if Huckabee went through as much scrutiny as the Clintons did and no wrong doing was found then the issue could be put to rest. Hells bells in your first comment you rail against the very thing (cherry picking etc) you feel into doing.

You like Huckabee, fine, good for you. I think he is a religious nut who would be awfully bad for the country even if he is folksy and amusing.

Edgeways and Steve are you related?

Post a comment

Seriously: If you click "post" more than once, you're going to end up looking really stupid.

If you don't see your comment after it's published, try refreshing your browser.