namelesstavern.net

Obama and Huckabee win

Good showing for Dr Ron Paul, also.

Official Iowa Results:
Dems: Obama 37.53; Edwards 29.88; Clinton 29.41
GOP: Huckabee 34; Romney 25; Thompson 14; McCain 13%; Paul 10%

you meant "Iowa"

I'm exhausted after watching all that.

wow. huckabee=republican

I think I'm happier with the Democrats results then with the Republicans.

At least Ron Paul beat Guiliani...and at least Wolf Blitzer just said (and I heard him say it..) "let's not leave out Ron Paul.."

I agree with the Democrat results..

Richardson came 4th among Democrats, and is going to keep going. Biden & Dodd are withdrawing.

No withdrawal announcements from any Republicans as yet.

-Arlos

Richardson polls at minimal numbers nationwide. As does Kucinich and the other fringe candidates.

Hopefully the debates will be solely Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

I'm pleased with the Democratic results, as I like Obama. I disagree with a few of his positions, but this country could do far worse than Barack Obama in the White House.

The GOP field is wide open. It'd be great if Paul places in the top 3 in New Hampshire. It'll be even better if Mccain beats Romney there.

ditto pretty much.

Yeah, Ron Paul did about triple what they expected him to do. He just needs to start spending some of that money he's got on advertising.

There's something about Huckabee that scares me. Is it wrong to hope he runs outta money and has to drop out?

I forget where i heard this but some political commentator was saying that iowa isnt a good measure due to some demographic issues. not sure i buy that myself

Martrae wrote:Yeah, Ron Paul did about triple what they expected him to do. He just needs to start spending some of that money he's got on advertising.

There's something about Huckabee that scares me. Is it wrong to hope he runs outta money and has to drop out?

Huckabee is too much like Jimmy Carter. He has little cash, but the fact the field is so spread out on the GOP side means everyone has a shot.

Romney has the cash and the backing of the conservative media. Mccain has the backing of more independents. Giuliani appeals cross spectrum being pro choice and pro gay marriage. Thompson tows the conservative line truest, but campaigns like old people fuck.

Should be a fun year.

Evermore wrote:I forget where i heard this but some political commentator was saying that iowa isnt a good measure due to some demographic issues. not sure i buy that myself

Iowa is 95% white so Obama win is a bit of a surprise for some.

As for Huckabee, besides his call in 1992 for quarantining AIDS patients, when we knew damn well it wasn't necessary, he was co-author of a book in 1998 that equated homosexuality with necrophilia, among other things. He's really a wolf in sheep's clothing when it comes to such things, much like Bush was. Remember "I'm a uniter, not a divider", and the whole "compassionate conservative" schpiel, when he was at the opposite end of the spectrum on both? Huckabee's the same way. Talks a big game now about being moderate and inclusive, but go back and look at his earlier writings, and you'll get a very different picture. He scares the crap out of me, to be honest.

-Arlos

Huckabee said the assassination in Pakistan should serve as a reminder to be stricter with immigration.

When I heard that I was a little WTF.

Yea when I saw Huckabee at the top of the Republican results, I was a bit worried. I mean if the Dems to manage to lose this race, I really don't want it to be to him.

for me the republican race looks bleak at best with anyone but Paul. I think with the others we risk 4 more years of the embarrassment and pain we've suffered for the past 8.. and with Huckabee especially.

I think that Paul will increase in numbers over time, his supporters are just so strong and relentless in their support for him. I have a lot of hope for how he progresses, and am thrilled that Obama did so well on the democrat side.

Arlos wrote:As for Huckabee, besides his call in 1992 for quarantining AIDS patients, when we knew damn well it wasn't necessary, he was co-author of a book in 1998 that equated homosexuality with necrophilia, among other things. He's really a wolf in sheep's clothing when it comes to such things, much like Bush was. Remember "I'm a uniter, not a divider", and the whole "compassionate conservative" schpiel, when he was at the opposite end of the spectrum on both? Huckabee's the same way. Talks a big game now about being moderate and inclusive, but go back and look at his earlier writings, and you'll get a very different picture. He scares the crap out of me, to be honest.

Any Republican who doesn't hate Repo's is a wolf to most progressives. No sheeps clothing needed. Huckabee is very similar to Clinton and Jimmy Carter in the way he's handled Arkansas and his approach to government, but of course the God haters only care about something he might have said without actually looking at his record. Likewise, most of Iowa voters probably don't have a clue what he stands for, but the progressive and evangelicals are two pea's in a pod, for sure.

Huckabee worked well with the DNC. As someone from Texas, Bush also worked very well with Democrats there. However, state office is not national office. We've entered a time of political nastiness rivaling the Brits process, which seems to have started with the attacks and smears of the legislative GOP to Clinton in the 90s, to the current pure partisan lying nastiness the DNC has personally pushed at Bush over the last 5 years.

I doubt we'll get back to a time of respect any time soon, as the bar keeps getting higher and higher for nastiness and smears. Even good men like Mccain and Obama likely will be construed evilly if they win the White House office due to antagonistic partisanship,

I do hope we keep a level of balance in Congress and the White House. This is my preferred method of government as it prevents a lot of stupid overreaching legisation and hopefully allows the whackjobs on both sides to nullify each other..

Whatever happens I hope the economic roll the country has been on isn't interrupted by more taxes or more inept legislation and centralized power grabs trying to create more and more entitlement programs, especially since our current entitlement ones are straining us to the brink, and the baby boomers haven't even started to retire en masse.

As long as we don't get Romney or Hildebeast, I won't care too much.

I wish you wouldn't keep interpreting comments that imply nothing of the sort as a hatred of Christianity itself. While I make no bones whatsoever about not believing in it, and not liking the dogmatic organizations that exist as frameworks around many branches of it, I have no problems whatsoever with the base religion itself. A lot of what Jesus himself said is quite meaningful, and certainly worthy of listening to.

It is when churches try to inflate their temporal arms that I have an issue. Unchecked, they lead to things like the stifling of human thought and expression like we had in the middle ages, where people were burned at the stake for daring to claim that stars were other suns like our own, and Galileo forced to recant his true scientific work. At the extreme, you end up with things like the Spanish Inquisition.

So, I am by no means a God-hater, but what I AM adamant about is respecting the separation of church and state, and keeping religion OUT of politics. I will be antagonistic towards ANY intrusion of religiosity into the public political sphere, regardless of which faith it is. Christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, shinto, buddhist, zorastrianism, anything, period. That's not being a "God-hater" by any stretch of the imagination, and I grow tired of your repeated mischarictarization and false implications on the matter. Just look at Carter, for example. He's an extremely religious individual, but it was kept to his private life, not his political life. That is exactly how it SHOULD be done.

Anyone who does it the other way round (*cough* Bush, *cough* Huckabee, *cough* Romney) is violating the intent of the founding fathers, as illustrated in Jefferson's letters on the issue.

-Arlos


PS. As for McCain, I could've respected and been OK with the 2000 version. The 2008 version, he has flip-flopped far too much on his opinions, pandering and cuddling up to the religious right in complete opposition to what he said about them in 2000/2001. Furthermore, I cannot abide his uber-hawkish unwavering support for the disastrous and catastrophic war in Iraq. His attempt to mis-portray the security situation there and grandstand with his "walk in Baghdad" further hardened those opinions.

Arlos wrote:Unchecked, they lead to things like the stifling of human thought and expression like we had in the middle ages, where people were burned at the stake for daring to claim that stars were other suns like our own, and Galileo forced to recant his true scientific work. At the extreme, you end up with things like the Spanish Inquisition.

This requires a little bit of south park.

You may not have seen the episode, but it is called Go God Go. Basically Cartman is ported to the future to get a wii. In the episode richard dawkins is also present saying the same basic "religion kills" rhetoric you preach above.

Anyways,
In the future there are 3 factions that all have a different opinion on what absolute truth is. There is no religion in this future. Only Science. But yet there are still wars over it.

Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go_XII

Ron Paul's view on the subject:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Why do people think South Park is an authority on anything?

They've brainwashed a generation of sheep into being mindless neo-cons.

They could have created a generation of whiny pussy hippies.

I say it's a better deal than the alternative in the spectrum.

You'll pardon if I don't find a fictional comedy show to be of immense value here. Furthermore, Ron Paul is simply incorrect in his statement about the founding fathers. Read one of Jefferson's letters here: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html for proof.

I quote a particularly pithy line here:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god

It is inarguable that when religious institutions wielded temporal power that oppression resulted. It's historical fact. You will understand then that I don't with to see a Round 2 of this situation, especially given the oppressive nature of actions advocated by the current religious right, in their attempt to force everyone, regardless of faith, to conform to their set of mores.

I have in nowhere argued in any way against people holding whatever private religious beliefs they may care to. Indeed, I encourage it wholeheartedly, regardless of which faith they follow, as long as it doesn't advocate harming people.

What I am adamant in my opposition to is the interjection of religion into the POLITICAL realm, which is, as shown above, something that Jefferson was opposed to as well. Believe whatever you wish in your private life, absolutely free of any restriction. But what you believe should remain between you and whatever power you believe in, it does NOT have any place being forced into the political realm. Period.

-Arlos

PS. WTF is wrong with "Happy Holidays"? There are at least 4 separate religious festivals happening at almost identical time, only one of which is Christmas. (Hannukah, Kwanzaa & Yule) Why should the initial greeting be exclusive and discount those three other faiths from consideration as being important or relevant? Why should Christianity be the sole mention of people in a public capacity? Pardon me for thinking that being inclusive is better than excluding all non-Christians...

Or maybe people can think for themselves??!?!?!??!?!!?

I had the Happy Holidays discussion with my MiL while she was here. To me it's always meant Hanukkah, Christmas and New Years. If other people see it as including Kwanzaa or any Winter Solstice or other holiday they like I don't care. It doesn't affect me in any way shape or form.