FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

You're a joke. He's a reverend.

 

I'd post mine...problem is it would out me and people like you made that a problem before in this place.

 

I'd like to see though, just for grins, what you think (specifics, please) separates me from Huckabee in such a way that would draw shame.This ought to be good.

 

Dog, whatever point(s) you may have, are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of your posts.

The way you try to bring everything back to homosexuality and/or religion causes me (and probably others) to gloss over your posts.

It's just too much. Focus. Fewer, shorter, more concise posts. Try it out -- for all of us.

 

Concision is not a value set for many on this board. He's doing fine.
One of the good things about this site is you can really tell who needs an editor.

 

Twisted, what you're saying is consent to the gay rights movement and I'm coherent. Check with your bud on here and ask him if his duck-blind buddy Huck is in agreement on that issue.

 

And because he's a reverend he would prefer you make your points in a more graceful, thoughtful way - rather than name-calling and spouting moronic conspiracy theories about FEMA camps. I think he would advocate drawing more flies with honey than vinegar bit.

Also, too, it's interesting you hold Huckabee up as your hero. He governed Arkansas as a moderate and supports some liberal positions like cap-and-trade. What was it Grover Nordquist called him? A serial tax increaser or something. He's an interesting cat, the ying to Clinton's yang in Arkansas politics.

 

You really need to subscribe to him on Facebook. His tone is not as you say. And his tax hikes in Arkansas came at a time when education was in shit shape under the previous office holder. And those taxes benefited education. Big difference when tax hikes go to legitimate services instead of special interest lobbies and bureaucracies.

 

No, I don't need to subscribe to him. I've read and seen enough of him over the years. He's a media figure now. He cranks up the rhetoric for ratings. Go back over the years and you'll see a much kinder and gentler Huckabee who was able to make his point without incendiary bomb throwing at the other side. You talk to him one on one or in a small group and he's quite pleasant, even when people disagree with him. I'd never vote for him, but I have enjoyed sharing a duck blind with him.

 

Collateral damage? Look up "collateral damage" in the dictionary and you'll see a picture of Obama.

 

The idea that you have to meet certain qualifications but don't have to prove you meet those qualifications means, in reality, that you don't have to meet those qualifications.

Scalia is wrong. How do I know? Because Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan voted the same way.

 

This case does not hold that a state can never require documentation of citizenship in order to register to vote.

There is something called the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 that requires states to accept and use a uniform federal from for registration for federal elections. That form requires applicants to aver, under penalty of perjury, that they are citizens. Congress has the authority to impose its requirements for federal elections pursuant to the Elections Clause (Article I, Cl. 1) of the U.S Constitution.

The Court, in a decision written by Scalia and joined by the Chief Justice, as well as Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, held that the new Arizona law that also required documentation of citizenship, was preempted by the federal law.

The Court also noted that the states can request state specific additions to the form and that Arizona could appeal the denial of its request by showing that the documentation is necessary to enforce the citizenship requirement or because the denial was arbitrary and capricious in light of the approval of a Louisiana requirement for some additional documentation.