Forbidden Donut

Mike Huckabee ftw.

I am curious about Mike Huckabee. Everything I've seen about him points to the idea that he's an absolute horrible person; what do you like about him?

I don't know. It'd be pretty awesome if he did win, but caucuses will be really tough for him. If he does win in Iowa, I think there'd be no stopping him. The sad part is that if he doesn't do well, his support may start to run dry as people support candidates that have more of a shot.

quick, when was the last time governor and i agreed on politics?


meat----->ron paul could certainly become the second best president of all time, only behind ronaldus magnus!

My friend is what got me into him in the first place. I'll admit that he knows more about politics and this kind of stuff than I do, but I browsed his website and I'll try and explain what I agree with or reasons why I like him.

1) His advertising with Chuck Norris is phenomenal.

These are from his website, which I realize is completely biased, but I am going to try and look at what it means for me.



Personally I'd rather see development in alternative energy sources. But he is actually doing something about energy, and opening potential for alternative energy by regulating the amount of oil and gas being produced. The automobile license renewal system shows that he is able to put out ideas that work well.



I went to one a charter school in FL. Without that there is probably no way that I would have gotten into UF. These charter schools offer a venue for students that are serious and enable them to work more at an accelerated pace and be recognized for it. Getting slowed up in a classroom by kids that don't take school seriously is terrible, for everyone.

He has some interesting ideas on health issues as well. I have heard bad things about his policies on tax, but to be honest I have to read more into those and make a decision whether or not I support them, but I'm loaded with schoolwork right now so feel free to beat me to the chase with what is wrong with all his stuff, but I have to read more in depth what his stance on those issues are when I have the time. But so far I don't see anything I disagree with.

huckabee is a fucking retard

Here here.

So I'm assuming alternative energy sources and education reform are the two issues you consider the most important in this upcoming election? If not, what issues do you feel are important, and how do you feel about them?

The revolution has only just started. They launch the Freedom Blimp ( http://www.ronpaulblimp.com ) on the 12th. I think we have a shot at this thing.

I don't really have hot-button issues that I think are drastically more important than the others. However, there are certain things that the president will be able to change, and certain things that he wont. For example Huckabee's Tax ideas state that he is for Fair Tax. To me that is too much like communism in the way that it looks like a great idea on paper, but isn't going to work for us in reality. And something that he won't be able to hop into office and be like, alright guys, lets completely redo our taxing policy. But he was able to make some significant cuts, which is what every president claims they are going to do. The problem is where are these cuts going to come from?

Ron Paul's website doesn't do much of a job selling me of how successful he has been in a leadership position. Everything his website says about how he is going to fix our economy is based on the idea that we are going to start spending less money. It does an excellent job of pointing fingers. "We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States." That's his plan. He is claiming to be able to work all the miracles, and that is what he has to back him up.

Ron Paul's Debt and Taxes issues section clocks in at 268 words. Mike Huckabee's, more than four times that, at 1,114 words in which he actually proposes ideas and has numbers of what he has done, and where he would like to improve. With Huckabee I feel like I know what I would be voting for. Ron Paul isn't as direct. Sure he talks about foreign investors, lobbyists, wasteful agencies and whatnot, but I'm not sure I buy it. I'm not sure I believe he is going to 'clean up Washington' and that is going to help our country, just because he says he is going too.

But you asked more specifically about issues, I just talked about taxes and touched on the economy. Huckabee is pro life and against gay marriage, and pro-war. I don't think the federal government, much less the president, should, or will have much of an impact in those two areas. I don't really care about those issues either, and am not going to base my vote on it.

As for the war, like a lot of conservatives have been in the past, (Mr. Ronaldus if you please meathammer) he is for messing around in other countries business, and for staying in Iraq. However, the fact that there is an organization out there that is as dedicated to terrorizing the U.S. as to strap bombs to themselves and do crazy shit like that, yes, that scares me. Again, since I am getting my information from their websites, Huckabee has extensive information about what I believe he would actually do if elected. Again, Ron Paul's message is simple. He believes we need to take our forefathers and "entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations."


If those troops in the 130 countries are saving lives, then I'm for it. The world is becoming a smaller place every day, and I believe as the most powerful country in the world we should be doing out best to make sure it turns out alright. In general discussion we talked about the man that shot the burglars robbing his neighbor's house. Gov, you said he "protected his neighbor's property. To me, that's justice." If you can respect this man for doing this for his neighbor, I don't see what would be wrong with our nation doing the same for its neighbors. As for not being able to protect ourselves, what good is a bunch of troops sitting around on U.S. soil going to do us? By the time that the enemy is that close, it's too late. Right now we have a preventative strategy. I prefer that to sitting around waiting for someone to bring their army to my doorstep. Too few troops defending America? I would argue that the ones that are sitting around here are the ones that aren't doing the defending.

I am a bit confused; you said you supported Huckabee, but it seems like you disagree with nearly all of his policies and that the only reason you support him is that you think he's put thought into his policy propositions. I'm not trying to rag on you for liking Huckabee, I'm just trying to understand why.

I would like to clarify some of Ron Paul's positions involving leadership and fiscal responsibility because I think you have misunderstood him on both accounts.

Ron Paul has had a near perfectly consistent voting record in congress throughout all of his 10 terms. I won't go into too many details, but you can certainly take a look for yourself. He has always voted against an unbalanced budget. He has always voted against unconstitutional spending. He has never voted for congressional pay raises. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension plan, and he returns a portion of his income to the federal government every year. When he says the constitution does a good job regulating fiscal responsibility, he means that the biggest problem this country faces economically is the off-the-cuff radical spending our federal government is responsible for. Our debt is so great now, the US owes nearly 200,000 dollars for every single man, woman, and child. The end-result is that we're completely reliant on countries like China that have absolutely no interest in our safety or self-interests and are becoming filthy rich because of our suffering and our money is progressively plummeting in worth. Ron Paul's stance on fiscal responsibility is clear: it is absolutely essential that the government stops its radical spending...and if we actually rely on what the constitution tells us is the role of the government, then we simply wouldn't spend all of the money we are spending.

Ron Paul is all for tax cuts. In fact, he wants to cut federal income tax down completely. But despite his radical ideals for tax policy, he is the only candidate that actually understands and flaunts the fact that in order to do any sort of tax cuts, we need to dramatically reduce spending. We are throwing money away at a rate that is absolutely unheard of throughout our history, we are bankrupting our country, and we are destroying our own economy. You're absolutely right that no president will be able to accomplish all of their planned policies, and Ron Paul understands that. He also understands that he has to focus on what he can change, and that is our involvement overseas. Only 40% of our country's income is from the federal income tax, and we spend 60% of our money overseas in foreign nation building. You do the math. If you want to see proof of this understanding, take a look at his completely consistent voting record in that regard. This is the guy that told congress in the early 80s that we are spending far beyond our means and we're going to screw ourselves by doing unnecessary nation building overseas over the next decades.

As if it were important, the length of his debt and taxes information on his website is short for a reason. He doesn't need to BS anything. It's the same reason when answering questions in debates, he doesn't spend half of his time talking in circles. He gets straight to the point, and his point is relatively simple: we the people are allowing the federal government to ignore the constitution -- the very thing that made us so great and the thing that keeps us democratic -- and we the people are paying the price. It's not that hard to see where we're dumping the largest portions of our spending, and it's not hard to stop.

Don't believe any candidate wants to clean up Washington or whatever just because they say so. I agree 100% with you. So, look at what the candidates have done throughout their political careers, and you will see which is the only candidate that has consistently opposed government excess and unchecked power growth. There is nothing stopping the executive branch from doing whatever they want to do except the constitution, and for the most part we've outright ignored that for decades.

Ron Paul is personally pro-life. He has delivered thousands of babies, and he contributes his stance on that issue largely to that. However, he does not think the federal government is responsible or even allowed to regulate it.

He is fine with gay marriage as well. He believes banning gay marriage is entirely unconstitutional and therefore 100% illegal.

And finally, he is the only congressmen that has so consistently supported the safety of the United States through actual intelligent decision-making. All the way back in the early 80s, he pleaded with Congress to not support Iraq in the war against Iran. He was the only politician that could look past their own political motives and see that it was bad for our country to be there. He said back then that we'd pump billions of dollars into the region and the end result would be a further destabilizing of the region and potentially direct harm to the US. He said that 20 years before 9-11! And now, he's the only candidate is still willing to put their entire political career on the line to address the actual problems in the region, why people hate us, and why they have and will continue to harm us. You can, like most of the politicians on the hill today, call our involvement in the middle east a preventative measure, but it simply isn't true. Our involvement is entirely reactionary. Long before you and I were born, we went there to exploit the region. Now, we stay in the region to protect ourselves. Yet, thousands of innocent US citizens paid the price for our careless presence overseas on September 11th, 2001, and thousands more of our brave soldiers have given their life only to make people hate us even more. We didn't fly the planes into our own towers, but to say that we had nothing to do with provoking the hatred that led to such a tragic event is absolutely irresponsible. None of the other candidates aside from Ron Paul are willing to address the reasons 9-11 happened -- they all just want to kill them some terrorist scumbags!

Again, Ron Paul's policies are not simple due to being irresponsible or not well-developed; they're simple because the issues facing us are simple. We spend too much money, we put our nose where we shouldn't, and we are giving too much power to the government at the expense of our own safety, freedom, and finances.

Ah but we didnt go bankrupt and we were able to bully the Soviet Union into bankruptcy instead. Spending is fine as long as it has a purpose. I 100% agree that we are spending ridiculous amounts of money and we must pursue fiscal responsibility. Completely leaving foreign politics in order to save 60% of our money is like a 5th grade solution- way too idealistic and way too simple. We will have to be willing to do the hard work in reviewing every governmental dollar spent if we want to put this nation on solid financial footing. We can save 60% of our money instantaneously like Paul says, but then it will free up money that politicians can promise their constituents and we will build up entitlements to fill that void. Plus, our economy will tank without foreign protection leading to lower tax revenue leading to LESS MONEY THAN WE HAD IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR DOMESTIC ISSUES. The current 40% we spend on domestic issues will dwarf the 100% we spend on domestic issues in a Ron Paul-lead future.

evestay good thought pattern but the logic is off.


i'd rather see 100% of our total budget going into things that i can see and benefit from aside from the 60% of our budget that is currently financing two fullsizes airbases being implemented into iraq currently.

I'm a bit confused, what foreign protection are we talking about?

court can correct me if i'm wrong but i don't believe paul wants to "completely leave foreign politics". he basically wants to stop being fucking retards around the world.

he's fine with trading, he's fine with diplomacy. he's not fine with policing the world and making the entire fucking earth hate us.

CJ said it. Ron Paul is not an isolationist and never will be. He is not against spending money overseas; he's not against wars; he's not against national defense; he's not against the military. He supported military build up to combat the Soviet threat during the Cold War, and he was just as happy as everyone else to see the Soviet union to fall. The Soviet Union crumbled upon itself because of corrupt government practices, forced nationalization, and the same downfalls that pretty much every communist country has to deal with today. The pressure placed on them by the Cold War were much the same as the pressures put on us, we just had a more solid infrastructure to sustain us. And remember, it was diplomacy -- not battle -- that avoided global disaster during those forty years.

People like to claim that Ron Paul is a kook isolationist that has no idea what makes good foreign policy, but his voting record has very clearly proven otherwise.

Ron Paul is not against government spending, either. He's against fiscally irresponsible government spending. Even if Ron Paul got his way all of the time, it's not like we'd be sitting on a boatload of cash ready to give out to people like hand-outs, because there are thousands of government programs that exist that will continue to need funding and he has no intention of messing with.

His goals are simple, and I think you are grossly taking them out of context: dramatically decrease unnecessary and unconstitutional government spending so the government can stop stealing the money that we citizens make through honest work and stop counterfeiting money to support itself.

Yes, economics is not a simple matter, and Ron Paul never claimed that it was. It is an incredibly complex system that no one on this earth can truly claim to understand to the fullest, and that is why it is so imperative that we get our federal government (which is inherently the most fallible and destructive part of our entire country) out of it!

Foreign policy is no simple matter, either. This is why I can't comprehend how people that understand this fact can support the myriad of candidates out there that refuse to address the real cause of the issues that affect our foreign policy because they are either not smart enough or too worried about how their uneducated constituents will feel about it. The solutions we need to come up with will not be a result of "crush with rock, if still alive, repeat." Our problems overseas are complicated and deep-seeded, and we need a president that understands this and wants to actually seek realistic, long-term solutions.

Ron Paul is that man.

So I've been in Iowa for the past couple months and it's been crazy with all this politic-type stuff going on.

Anyway, I was in one of the foodcourts today eating with co-workers and all the sudden a large mass of people start heading our way. Some guy walks up to us and says "Hi, I'm Mitt Romney, running for President." We shook his hand and went back to eating. I still dont know who is is -- or who any candidates are because I honestly don't give a rat's ass. But it's cool to say that I shook the hand of a candidate even though I know nothing about him.

Mitt Romney is the former Massachusetts Governor and a front-running candidate for the Republican nomination.

ok gov that clears up a few points about him, thanks =) and about the foreign protection thing.. i just mean that american companies are only willing to go overseas and make mucho money if they are backed up by the federal government- we dont necessarily have to protect each and every company, but we do need the capability in order to prove stability to businesses

hey I have some questions about Paul. If he becomes President will he leave ships and aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf? If not, what would his response be to Iran taking over the the Shatt al Arab waterway which is half Iraq/ half Iran territory and provides the only shipping entrance to the region?
http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/iraniraq.htm :

What would his response be to intel saying Iran was about to nuke Israel in 4 hours? Wouldnt he want to have aircraft in the region to stop it? If he'd rather Israel defended itself, don't you think Arabs would see that as a Zionist action and wouldnt it cause another intifada by Palestinians? For instance, during the first Gulf War, the US forced Israel not to react to Iraq shooting missiles into their country in order to keep Arabs as our allies.

I haven't heard any similar questions addressed to him, so I do not know his official response; however, I can assume he would not want to leave any ships in the Persian Gulf.

As for the Shatt al Arab waterway being taken over by Iran, I don't think he'd have much response militarily. As far as he is concerned, that is a conflict between Iraq and Iran (one that has existed for quite a long time).

As President, he'd immediately seek to improve relations with nations like Iran in the middle east so we could trade more openly. Afterall, it is in Iran's and our own best interest to be diplomatic so that we can support free trade to benefit both of our economies.

As for the nuking Israel thing, I think that would be quite a stupid move on the Iranian behalf, so I can't imagine the growing nation doing something so suicidal. However, if we did receive intelligence saying that Iran was about to nuke Israel in 4 hours (that would be some very bad intel to arrive so late), I'm sure Israel wouldn't hesitate to raise Iran to the ground.

Iraq is in the process of rebuilding its shattered nation and will be doing so for many years to come, so I don't think you have to worry about them doing much of anything in that region for many decades. The conflict between Palestine and Israel has always been bloody and has no end in sight. However, Israel has devastated the Palestinian people when even a small sector of them cause issues. That won't change regardless of whether it is a full blown revolt or the random car bombings and such that they deal with every day.

Edit: I did want to point out: Ron Paul is against getting involved with the affairs of other nations and forming costly alliances (like the one with Israel); however, there are plenty of politicians that can't afford to simply ignore the issues with Israel. If it ever arose that a foreign nation tried to invade Israel and congress wanted to come to Israel's aid, Ron Paul would send troops to the region the second congress declared war, and he'd keep them there until it was no longer in our best interests to stay.

Too bad this is politics, no matter which president is elected, he'll do the same thing

That seems like an ignorant comment. Yep, it is.

The truth is presidents DO handle things differently. A good example is the economic difference between Hoover and Roosevelt.

I think the only way to improve relations with Iran would be to let them have nukes. Why would they trade with us if we were still against that? I realize trade is good for them, but its not like Ahmadinejad really cares about the plight of his people so he would not hesitate to avoid giving us oil to get us to capitulate.

My guess is that he'd keep our navy on patrol in a more limited fashion, in order to protect American citizens abroad.

As to the second one, he would cut off monetary support to Israel, thus ending any right of ours to boss the Israelis around. Once Israel is truly a sovereign nation again(without its defense being subsidized by the US) I'd presume that Dr. Paul would agree with me that we would have no say in what the Israelis do or don't do.

I for one would be entirely open to keeping our Navy as it is now. There is no Navy in the world that can feasibly contest ours, not for decades to come. The concept of another Navy attacking our homeland is ridiculous. They have more then enough reason to stay across the world where they can react to whatever needs to be addressed, whether or not it actually directly affects us. Chances are, whatever conflicts erupt between nations, it will involve us, simply because of the UN. Granted, I think the UN is a retarded, bureaucratic POS, but the concept is still relevant, and given enough years of talk, they can pass some relevant resolutions.

You're right in saying that no navy can contest ours; however, our presence in the middle east is largely the reason why people hate us. You don't have to dismantle the navy or anything, just bring it home.

Its pretty ridiculous that they would hate us for our navy. They are the ones out of line with their views so why bring the navy home to appease people who are wrong?

How are they out of line with their views, and who are we to say something so arrogant? I think it is pretty ridiculous of us to assume they are incapable of living without our intervention. They've only done it for thousands of years longer than us.

Imagine a big dude coming into your house, eating all your food, taking your ladies, and using your internets. Unfortunately, the dude is twice your size, much better armed than you, and has the potential to call in 100 more dudes his size to fight with him if you cause him any trouble.

Aside from the slight awesomeness the above scenario depicts, we're basically doing the same thing and we justify it by saying that if we aren't they, their evil minds would run rampant and would seek to end civilization or some other wacky idea.

Yeah, their culture is drastically different than ours, and yes, they are extremely radical in their ideas (they weren't always like that; we helped them get that way in the first place and now drive them to remain as such by our own actions), but more than anything they just want us out of their home.

its more like the house has a case of domestic trouble and we are outside checking all the relatives coming in to make sure they dont make it worse. we provide the necessary security until they solve the problem. we let the problem get solved without one side wiping out the other, we let the problem get solved without looking for a strong man to muscle in a solution. we give them the time to work together and move forward. arent we nice?

oh and i do think the radical muslims are out of line with their views. we are such terrible infidels that we cant even have ships in the free ocean off their coasts? islam needs to reform away from the notion that they will only get along with the rest of the muslim world (dar al islam).

But we're not simply mediating the situation. We're providing billions of dollars in funding to the enemies of our enemies and in extreme cases like Iraq -- invading a country that provided a nice counter-balance to one of the most hated regimes in the region.

So instead, it's like we walked into their house, stirred up enough trouble that the house became unstable, and then used that as an excuse to exercise even more control over the region until "they deal with their problems." Sometimes countries that hate each other enough need to fight it out. It's a shame, and we hope that the most powerful nations around the world have developed to avoid such conflicts, but it has been a truth since the dawn of civilization. The problems in the middle east are massive and far beyond our control and understanding, so let the people that do understand them (the people that are actually there) deal with them in their own way. That might mean a bloody war, but with a history like ours -- a nation that was founded and flourished on bloody wars -- who are we to say they're not allowed to fight out their differences?

We expect miracles from the region and think we are their savior, but every good thing we do is counter-balanced by horrible atrocities and growing resentment. We've been actively involved in the middle east for decades, and nothing has improved (or rather, if things improve in one place, they become equally worse elsewhere). I still can't comprehend why people think we're even qualified to be there anymore.

Oh, and by the way, I agree 100% that radical Islam needs to reform to a modern world else they be left in the dust, but you help a child grow by beating them mercilessly until they are suddenly a better person. They need to reform in their own way, and their penalty for not doing so will be their own undoing. Forced religious beliefs and radical tendencies are definitely nothing new, yet we all managed to progress through them and evolve into free societies. It takes time, it takes blood, and it takes commitment. When they are ready for it, they will seize it themselves.

I think giving them democracy and separation of church and state is the only way to make that reform possible. If we simply allow the status quo to continue of having the same groups rule both politics and religion in each country, then there will be no reason or opportunity to reform.

wait, you mean if we leave them alone, they'll continue to live they way they want to live? wow, what a concept. allowing others to take care of themselves. amazing.

If we were capable of simply giving that to people, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, that's not how people work. In order for the separation of church and state and democracy to exist, the people need to want it to exist. That's not something you simply set up and it happens. America is a good example of this. We have one of the most stable democracies in history, but it can clearly be dismantled. It is a fragile thing, and it relies entirely on the will of the people.

And for separation of church and state, that is an even larger fish to fry. To them, their religion isn't a set of guidelines for worship, it is a part of them. Their lives depend on it. You can't simply say that the government should ignore that and assume it will work out.

I think history has proven your last statement wrong time and time again. It takes a long time for real, stable change to take place in countries. It usually requires a ton of bloodshed, as well. But if there is one thing that is certain about any government, change will happen. The average person in the US today hopes that the middle east will be a peaceful democratic community in the next few decades, and that will definitely not happen under any circumstance. It will take hundreds of years for the middle east to settle their differences so that they can live peacefully together, and only after they are given the opportunity to settle their own problems will they ever have a chance to pull themselves up.

Edit: By the way, I didn't intend for this to turn into a debate on the middle east. I definitely believe getting out is the right thing to do and will be the most beneficial in the long run for all parties involved. Ron Paul's position is simple: the middle east is its own beast, so let it do its thing. If we have to protect the lives of Americans overseas, that is one thing, but we shouldn't have to spend our money and blood on issues we barely understand in the first place.

Ok. I've been reading the 9/11 commission report (ever since I saw the first Republican debate). One of the big issues with us being over there is this "we know better" mindset. When we went in to arm the mid-easterns against Russia (still have to see Charlie Wilson's war, but it's in that frame), we had some people stationed there that upset people by forcing them to throw out their traditional way of handling business and in the process insult their ways and traditions. That was one of the events that lead up to the hatred that made 9/11 possible.

I saw the title of this topic and I could have SWORN it said:

"Ru Paul #3 in Iowa"

I lol'ed

^^ agreed