Jan 23 2008
Thank God! Huckabee is broke
"The money simply hasn't come in at the rate that we expected," says the aide. "Florida is a $7 million commitment that we can't meet, and if we did, that leaves us exposed for Super Tuesday, where we have a lot of states and a lot media buys. We had to make tough decisions."
Anybody who advocates federally sanctioned discrimination against homosexuals, the continuation of the war in Iraq, a ban on embryonic stem cell research, and a federal sales tax, and on top of all that believes the world was created in six days despite any scientific evidence to the contrary, seems to me wouldn't make a too good of a president.
Nice guy though. I'd gladly invite him to dinner any day of the week.
Update: This blog's SEO is unbelievable. It's been only 3-4 hours since I wrote this post and I'm #2 in Google for "Huckabee is broke." That just blows my mind.
Supposedly similar posts:
12 Responses to “Thank God! Huckabee is broke”
I'll second that! …Besides, it had to have taken at least 7 or 8 days for the earth to be made
I live in Florida!!! Orlando specifically. Its not that great.
Lets help him out by using up the rest of his funds… pastorinchief.com
Not to mention he wants to change the constitution so that it fits in accord with Christian dogma. What a nut.
This makes me happy too.
But he would have been so good for the late night shows and "Wait, Wait. . ."
Garrett's last blog post..by: DeOrio
You guys are crazy… It was totally made in 6 days. Where one day is calculated by "the time it time for the solar system to circle the milky way".
No one ever said it had to be 24-hour days.
Really enjoy your blog, but your gratuitous comments about Huckabee — although fun to read — are (in my view) off-base, at least in part.
First, regarding the number of days (and length of each) expended to create the world is very simple if one takes the biblical account literally — six 24-hour days (God rested on Day Number Seven). This account was hardly questioned by educated men in Europe until sometime in the 1700s or 1800s hundreds. So, please do not make it sound like only hillbillies believe it. (Okay, but please don't call me a hillbilly to my FACE.
Now, I will be the FIRST to admit that I cannot PROVE my point of view, but, Mr Pav, if you are honest (and I know you are), you will also have to admit that you cannot prove your viewpoint either. The reason? The origin of the universe is not a repeatable event (a requirement for something to be the subject — or point — of a scientific "proof").
You show you are a fair person because you would enjoy having Huckabee over for dinner. I respect that. You don't have to vote for him to be a fair person.
The scientific origin of the universe is widely debated, yes, gunjam. But, it is a conclusion reached based off of evidence obtained and analyzed through an "investigative tradition" (to use the word of His Holiness the Dalai Lama). The biblical creation story is parabolic, and compiled not from conclusions the result of data extrapolation and theorization, but by a literary method and anecdotal traditions. There is a huge difference in the credence you can give those two viewpoints, regardless of any rhetoric of "proof".
That said, in the only Republican debate I could stand to put myself through (I have masochist-tendencies it seems) when posed with the question of "Do you read the bible literally? Is it the word of God?", he was the only candidate to say this: The Bible is the word of God, but it is also a piece of literature from a time very different from the world of today, and needs to be read and interpreted in its modern context as well.
McCain even said it is the literal truth, which blew my mind. That is a guy I have no more respect for. Huckabee (though I'd never vote for him) speaks with some integrity and thought.
It is the same type of integrity that McCain used to have, and that Obama has now. Huckabee also manages to actually provide some reasonable logic and information from those bozo questions that don't even deserve asking much less an answer.
I can understand people voting for Huckabee at some level, though his policies are backwards. All the other Republicans, I have no idea how people can stand to look at them talk. If I were trapped inside a building with them I think I would have to gouge out my eyes and rake the inside of my ears with some sharp objects. But Huckabee:
I would eat dinner with him. Lunch at least.
gunjam;
The origin of the universe is not a repeatable event (a requirement for something to be the subject — or point — of a scientific “proof”).
That's not even remotely true and, no offence, but that's not how science works and is a logical fallacy that creationists trot out to try and support their argument, and to try and shift the burden of proof away from themselves. Also, there is no such thing as a scientific "proof", there are simply theories which either get better as new observations support them, or fall out as new observations don't support them. Science changes as the evidence does, in contrast to religious dogma.
Simply put, any past event that can be measured by the evidence it leaves behind is good enough, and there is a whole lot of evidence to support the Big Bang such as the microwave background radiation, expansion of the universe, and evidence from things as esoteric as the abundance of heavy metals in the universe. Contrast that with the creation story in the bible, whose only evidence is itself, which is a conflict of interest…
What I like best about this little oasis I've made on the internet is that 99.9% of the people who visit can disagree with me or each other with respect.
NaughtyFerret,
I think you agree with gunjam, then, since you said there's no such thing as scientific "proof". That's the Creationist's point as well. Many people like to think that evolution is "proven" while scientists and more educated people concede that no such thing is possible.
As far as science changing as evidence does, I believe you're biased on that opinion. While science changes within its atheistic bias, any scientific evidence that points toward the existence of God would be dogmatically discredited. Of course Creationists do the same thing, but we normally admit that bias (or the smart ones do). Because of personal experience (which is incontrovertible evidence for me) I believe God exists. No evidence would convince me otherwise because my experience outweighs it still. Many (or I dare say most) atheists also would stand by their position despite weighty evidence. And both groups (I think) maintain this belief because it's always possible that counter-evidence will eventually arise, and we will be proven right after all.
Sorry to distract from your political post, Rich. I won't try to enter that discussion since I know almost nothing about the candidates. お邪魔しました。