something like, "we need to cut taxes on production and income and have only taxes on consumption." i don't know if that was said by one of them or someone else, but it's a simple, to-the-point statement i like.
yea it may have been. it's unfortunate that he's the one with the awesome low government stance. it's so appealing but then he goes on about leaving Iraq and isolating ourselves, WHICH i do believe that is a colorful view to have and would be great to do if we could. But we're way too involved right now and need to finish what we start, perhaps through a change in leadership or A leadership.
alright well go huckabee.. but one thing he said didn't agree with me. about how he thinks OUR side of the illegal immigration issue is fueled by angry racists.. even if it was.. they have every right to be angry, and if they're "racist" so be it. i'm pretty sure they have legal rights to have opinions. alot of people will call anything racist. getting pissed at mexicans for this current issue isn't racist, it may be stereotyping but it's not racist. everyone wants to have a one name all f*ckin word for everything that they can apply to someone. also with the homophobe stuff, alot of people who don't want this gay marriage garbage.. aren't afraid of gays! they just don't want our values going down the drain. so he can preach that garbage elsewhere, america has every right to be angry about the border issue MAINLY against the politicians. they're worse then the illegals! they're letting it happen. hell if i was a mexican i'd come up here too illegally, look at all the stuff we offer for criminals!
fair tax is easy to support for a republican, cuz it'll never happen. lawyers and accountants have way too much invested in the current system and they donate tons of money to each party. the irs is here to stay, sadly. did he really throw out the racist line? i kinda liked him, but not now I guess. it's not about mexicans. its anyone illegal. people who stay past their visas need to be deported, if they are here illegally deport them, commit a crime deport them. Race isn't the issue. It's not difficult. The 19 hijackers were all on student visas, some of which were expired - had that been followed up on, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to do anything. there are legal ways into the country, and they aren't difficult - a little time consuming sometimes, but that's life.
exactly. i don't want to turn anyone away from him, but yeah when he said that it kinda threw me off. if tancredo spoke more about low government and had more support he'd be a perfect pick IMO. but he got what.. 2% last night lol
huckabee rose from obscurity in the before first debate to some degree of respect after the second (or third, whichever the one was before this one). He had good answers, he seemed intelligent, he was a decent governor, etc. He really didn't need to throw the Bush/Chertoff "you're a racist if you don't support amnesty" gambit out there. People were warming to him; that's gonna cool them off right away. Unfortunate. Tanc is good on his issue - immigration. His views on foreign policy (nuke mecca) makes him unacceptable, though. He should stick to his platform (immigration) and keep it on the table - that's what he's running for anyways. Making that an important issue in 2008. He knows he doesn't have a prayer.
I want to like Huckabee, he has a lot more presence than Ron Paul. The two things I don't like about him are He's a little too invested in a Christian America. I like the idea of separating church and state. And he looks a little bit like Richard Nixon. Everytime I look at him, I can't stop thinking about Tricky Dick.
huckabee is turning out to be a bit of a nanny-stater too. he said he'd support a federal ban on indoor smoking. decisions like that should really be up to individual business owners. he reminds me more of barney fife (from the andy griffith show) more than nixon though. he's totally a southern goober.
Even some tobacco road Republicans have come around to support the smoking bans. The problem with smoking is the effect it has on people who choose not to smoke. When they allowed smoking in businesses, they were allowing an unsafe working environment for all employees. It ends up costing the government - and tax payers - more money when it ends up providing some medical costs to those who get sick from second-hand smoke and when businesses get sued and go out of business. Which is worse, higher taxes or nanny state legislation?
That's fine. That's not the issue. Who supports something doesn't make it right. It's not about republicans or democrats. Not sure why everyone makes it about that. No one forces an employee to work anywhere. Or forces a customer to go into any building. If you don't want to work in a smoking office - don't. Don't want to go into a smoke filled bar - don't. It's not rocket science. If an employer wants a nonsmoking office. Great. If he doesn't. Great. I don't think government should be making one size fits all solutions to minor problems in our lives. That's a legistlative problem that sticks taxpayers with the bills that businesses and individuals create. The vast majority of offices are smoke free these days; indoor bans inevitably affect retail businesses (mainly bars, restaurants, etal) - customers have a choice to go into these or not. Bars claim to be going out of business and losing customers because of indoor bans in this area. I don't think government should be enacting legistlation that hampers the clientelle of legitimate enterprise.
"hmmm.."?? wtf kind of rebuttal is that? you sound like one of those quotes outside of a liberal college that preaches to be open minded while you kick out any conservative or moral values. hmmm i'm just so intelligent. i don't even need to state where you're wrong because i'm a liberal.
Hahaha - whatever you need, buddy. If "Hmm" is enough to rock your world to this extent, well, buddy, I'm sorry, but I wonder what you'll do when something really comes down. At any rate, "hmm" as in, well, hmmm - curious, I found it funny, an odd juxtaposition of words; I found it logically impossible to say "Mexicans," as in, a group of people classified by ethnicity or country of origin, affirm the possibility of "stereotypical," as in imputing a set of standard behaviors to a group of people, classified by some category, and then aver "not racist" in the same sentence, as in, denying racism, which is...uh, classifying the behavior of a group of people by a presumption based on observed behavior or imputations therein derived from a subset of people from the group in question. There. Does that salve the wound?
WOOOOWWWWW. everyone i want you read that idiots post above me. read it and read it good. read it over and over and over again, and if you need too, print it and put it under your bed. this is why our country and everyone in it is going to be sold into slavery to China, because of this awesome political correctness we have. as far as being correct.. you're not even correct, you tried to use as many big words you could find and combine them together to make you sound very intelligent without even thinking of what you just said. that's called being a dumb*ss. observing ones race.. then stereotyping them because of that race IS NOT RACISM.. LOOK IT UP IN THE F**KING DICTIONARY. go to dictionary.com right now and look that up. i beat you at your own pathetic game. get a clue bud, it's people like you that have a price tag on our country.
Actually, the reason why we will be sold into slavery is because China is financing our global empire, and the Fed inflates the money supply to cover the shortfall and interest payments to make up the difference. If you don't want to be sold into slavery, stop fighting Bin Laden's wars in the Middle East. Come home, lower taxes which should spur economic action and reduce our debt. Remember, taxpayer dollars (either real or lost in inflation) are spent on bullets. Bullets that get fired and end up in the sand of the Middle East. Those dollars gathered from taxation (or created by credit/inflation) have no tangible value to the American people, or the economy. It would be different if we were being invaded, or attacked by a sovereign nation, but having troops in 130 countries is bankrupting us. All of us who are not like Bush with Oil money or Cheney with Haliburton.
i agree with your concept. we shouldn't have started a war that we are fighting with one hand behind our back. either get sh*t done or gtfo. if their government leader isn't gonna work with us on anything then in my opinion we should say to hell with them. if they REALLY elected that guy in he should be doing his job. it's kinda late now to isolate ourselves, which i think may be a good idea but not at this point. the problem is we have no leadership. we need leadership. vote THOMPSON '08