• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Huckabee leading in Iowa

aplusmnt

Well-known member
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/iowa/republican_iowa_caucus

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Iowa caucus finds former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee with 28% of the vote, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with 25% support, and everyone else far behind.

I just can not see Huckabee winning over Hillary in some of the crucial states were the independent votes make the difference. I see him winning the Strong Conservative States.

I am not sure how I feel about Huckabee, but I am afraid of someone getting the nomination that can not beat Hillary.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Huckabee is the only serious candidate the republicans have that has fundamental integrity. If he wins the nomination, I will certainly look at him more closely.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/iowa/republican_iowa_caucus

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Iowa caucus finds former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee with 28% of the vote, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with 25% support, and everyone else far behind.

I just can not see Huckabee winning over Hillary in some of the crucial states were the independent votes make the difference. I see him winning the Strong Conservative States.

I am not sure how I feel about Huckabee, but I am afraid of someone getting the nomination that can not beat Hillary.


Why are you so afraid of someone who has not even gotten the nomination?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
aplusmnt said:
I am not sure how I feel about Huckabee, but I am afraid of someone getting the nomination that can not beat Hillary.


Why are you so afraid of someone who has not even gotten the nomination?

For the very reason you have said you would like to have her, you get Bill in on the deal. Last thing I want is another repeat of the past Clinton presidency.
 

Steve

Well-known member
After listening to Huckabee's entire answer on the death penalty..

He not only gave an honest, sensible answer,.. but was able to deflect a critical view of the policy...

“Tyler,’’ in Memphis: “I have a quick question for those of you who would call yourselves Christian conservatives. The death penalty, what would Jesus do?’’

“You know, one of the toughest challenges that I ever faced as a governor was carrying out the death penalty,’’ said Huckabee. “I did it more than any other governor ever had to do it in my state. As I look on this stage, I'm pretty sure that I'm the only person on this stage that's ever had to actually do it.

“Let me tell you, it was the toughest decision I ever made as a human being,’’ he said. “I read every page of every document of every case that ever came before me, because it was the one decision that came to my desk that, once I made it, was irrevocable. Every other decision, somebody else could go back and overturn, could fix if it was a mistake. That was one that was irrevocable.

“I believe there is a place for a death penalty,’’ Huckabee said. “Some crimes are so heinous, so horrible that the only response that we, as a civilized nation, have for a most uncivil action is not only to try to deter that person from ever committing that crime again, but also as a warning to others that some crimes truly are beyond any other capacity for us to fix.

“Having said that, there are those who say, "How can you be pro-life and believe in the death penalty?’ Huckabee asked himself. “Because there's a real difference between the process of adjudication, where a person is deemed guilty after a thorough judicial process and is put to death by all of us, as citizens, under a law, as opposed to an individual making a decision to terminate a life that has never been deemed guilty because the life never was given a chance to even exist… That’s the fundamental difference.’’

Cooper couldn’t let him go without asking, though: “What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?’’

“Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office,’’ Huckabee replied. “That's what Jesus would do.’’


I think Hillary should be more afraid of a real conservative such as Huckabee or Hunter,.. then Guiliani, who is just a mirror image of her on policy..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
kolanuraven said:
aplusmnt said:
I am not sure how I feel about Huckabee, but I am afraid of someone getting the nomination that can not beat Hillary.


Why are you so afraid of someone who has not even gotten the nomination?

For the very reason you have said you would like to have her, you get Bill in on the deal. Last thing I want is another repeat of the past Clinton presidency.

A Clinton presidency? A strong military, the world's respect, a stong economy, low gasoline prices, booming stock market, low unemployment, relative peace in the world.... Yep, those were the bad old days. Who in their right mind would want to go back to those times. :roll:
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Ironic that the left forgets that ole Bill was the laughing stock of the world. But the most saddening is that they forgot how terrorists,OBL, Saddam and others scoffed at the US as evidenced by 911 and numerous other incidents.
Ironic that ole Bill scoffed(loathed) the military anf the left gives him a pass on that.
Ironic that the Chinese and others used ole Bill to fit their agenda.
Ironic that the left has stood in the way of starting to create a more independent US fuel econmy.
etc....................
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
ff said:
A Clinton presidency? A strong military, the world's respect, a stong economy, low gasoline prices, booming stock market, low unemployment, relative peace in the world.... Yep, those were the bad old days. Who in their right mind would want to go back to those times. :roll:

:shock: I am not going to break down the absurdity of each area you list. But the fact you through a Strong Military and relative peace in the world in the bunch shows how slanted you truly are.

Don't quote me but from best of my figures the U.S. was attacked by terrorist more times under Clinton than any other President. And from what I remember he weakened the Military no way he made it stronger.

You really need to quit watching CNN (Clinton News Network)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
passin thru said:
Ironic that the left forgets that ole Bill was the laughing stock of the world.

I'm no Clinton lover--but in much of the reading I've done since his term, it appears that Bill had a much higher rating by the world than we in the US gave him credit for....They could relate to him-- he was human- he had human frailties and flaws they could understand....And sex trysts are almost expected in many of the European and International countries- so that was a bigger deal in the US than most the rest of the world.....

GW is more Stalinisque-- more above the masses--more veiled in a shroud of secrecy-unknowns- revealed falsehoods--which emanates little trust and is dominated by an arrogance that the common person can't relate to.....His legacy will be a reign of promoting fear and uncertainty in the world.....
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
His legacy will be a reign of promoting fear and uncertainty in the world.....

Maybe a little fear and uncertainty in the world is not a bad thing. Clinton never had anyone fear him and the terrorist were pretty certain if they attacked him he would do nothing.

Maybe after years of the world viewing the U.S. as a push over it is not a bad thing for there to be 8 years of a little fear and uncertainty.

Kind of like Gun Control, if a criminal has a little fear and uncertainty as to rather you have a gun in your home or on your person then maybe he will think twice about attacking you.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
[quote="aplusmnt"][
Maybe a little fear and uncertainty in the world is not a bad thing. Clinton never had anyone fear him and the terrorist were pretty certain if they attacked him he would do nothing.


Welll if the above is true...then why did they-terrorists- wait till Bush was office to strike the Twin Towers?


They could have easily done it in the last days of the Clinton presidency? In fact, if I was a terrorists that when I would have hit....so that it was a time of ' in between' presidents....but instead they waited till Bush was IN office.


Explain that one?
 

Steve

Well-known member
KolanuRaven
if I was a terrorists that when I would have hit....so that it was a time of ' in between' presidents....but instead they waited till Bush was IN office.


Explain that one?

That one's really easy... the radical islamic terrorists started planning years in advance.. the liberal media had them convinced Gore was going to win.. so they had no reason not to wait, as Gore was even wimpier then Clinton...:wink: :wink:
When Bush was elected, they just went through with thier original plan...
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Steve said:
KolanuRaven
if I was a terrorists that when I would have hit....so that it was a time of ' in between' presidents....but instead they waited till Bush was IN office.


Explain that one?

That one's really easy... the radical islamic terrorists started planning years in advance.. the liberal media had them convinced Gore was going to win.. so they had no reason not to wait, as Gore was even wimpier then Clinton...:wink: :wink:
When Bush was elected, they just went through with thier original plan...




And your local terrorists source tell you this ???? :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
[quote="aplusmnt"][
Maybe a little fear and uncertainty in the world is not a bad thing. Clinton never had anyone fear him and the terrorist were pretty certain if they attacked him he would do nothing.


Welll if the above is true...then why did they-terrorists- wait till Bush was office to strike the Twin Towers?


They could have easily done it in the last days of the Clinton presidency? In fact, if I was a terrorists that when I would have hit....so that it was a time of ' in between' presidents....but instead they waited till Bush was IN office.


Explain that one?
[/quote]

See Steve's reply above.

And I will add, that a transition year of power would be a good time to attack no matter who was going to become president.

The proof is there as to how scared the terrorist were of Clinton, we were attacked more under Clinton by terrorist than any other president.
 

Tex

Well-known member
Steve said:
KolanuRaven
if I was a terrorists that when I would have hit....so that it was a time of ' in between' presidents....but instead they waited till Bush was IN office.


Explain that one?

That one's really easy... the radical islamic terrorists started planning years in advance.. the liberal media had them convinced Gore was going to win.. so they had no reason not to wait, as Gore was even wimpier then Clinton...:wink: :wink:
When Bush was elected, they just went through with thier original plan...

c'cmon, steve. You can't have it both ways. Bush was in power for a long time before 911 and our FBI already knew the terrorists were working on getting airplanes to do their dirty job they did on 911. The problem was that there was no political will by BUSH and his administration to stop it. He dropped the ball as much as Clinton.

By Lisa Myers and the NBC Investigative Unit
NBC News
updated 3:27 p.m. CT, Mon., July. 26, 2004

LONDON - More than a year before 9/11, a Pakistani-British man told the FBI an incredible tale: that he had been trained by bin Laden’s followers to hijack airplanes and was now in America to carry out an attack. The FBI questioned him for weeks, but then let him go home, and never followed up. Now, the former al-Qaida insider is talking.

In March, 2000, Niaz Khan said he was down and out, waiting tables in a curry house north of London, overwhelmed by gambling debts and increasingly drawn to the message of a radical local imam. The imam extolled Osama bin Laden and the rewards of dying for jihad.

Then, one night, outside a casino in Manchester, England, Khan said two mysterious men approached him. “First they say, ‘We can help you,’" recalls Khan. "I say, ‘How can you help me?’ Say, ‘OK, come sit in car.’ Said ‘Do you heard Osama name’?”
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Tex said:
c'cmon, steve. You can't have it both ways. Bush was in power for a long time before 911 and our FBI already knew the terrorists were working on getting airplanes to do their dirty job they did on 911. The problem was that there was no political will by BUSH and his administration to stop it. He dropped the ball as much as Clinton.

I am not an expert on all the 911 reports etc......

But I do know Bush inherited an FBI system and CIA etc..... that had already been set in place for many years before he took office. You can not change the way intel is shared in the first couple months of taking office.

We can contribute the changes he made in those areas to why we have not been attacked again and why many plots have been spoiled.

I don't blame Clinton for attacks that happened on his watch, I blame him for his not reacting to them. We will never be able to stop all attacks, but we do not have to bend over and take it like Clinton did.

No President will be able to stop all attacks on us if the terrorist wish. What defines him will be how he reacts once we are attacked!!!!!!!
 

Tex

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Tex said:
c'cmon, steve. You can't have it both ways. Bush was in power for a long time before 911 and our FBI already knew the terrorists were working on getting airplanes to do their dirty job they did on 911. The problem was that there was no political will by BUSH and his administration to stop it. He dropped the ball as much as Clinton.

I am not an expert on all the 911 reports etc......

But I do know Bush inherited an FBI system and CIA etc..... that had already been set in place for many years before he took office. You can not change the way intel is shared in the first couple months of taking office.

We can contribute the changes he made in those areas to why we have not been attacked again and why many plots have been spoiled.

I don't blame Clinton for attacks that happened on his watch, I blame him for his not reacting to them. We will never be able to stop all attacks, but we do not have to bend over and take it like Clinton did.

No President will be able to stop all attacks on us if the terrorist wish. What defines him will be how he reacts once we are attacked!!!!!!!

I believe it was Clinton who ordered the missiles against Quadafi (could find out easy enough).

Both have a lot of culpability here and blaming it on each other doesn't solve the problem---it allows it to be perpetrated.

Using 911 to further political goals of destroying our democracy. Claiming the president needs more power instead of being accountable for their inability to use the power they had is nothing more than an abuse of power.
 
Top