Innocent Bystander wrote:Ed Dantes wrote:
#1 - The only thing that matters in that issue is what judges he appoints. Every GOP candidate essentially says he'll put on judges favorable to the pro-life side.
#2 - That's probably because you're a fool, or you want to screw the middle class.
#3 - I would defer to Fred Thompson on this one.
#4 - The only way Democrats would permit "rebuilding bridges" is if the right completely abandons their principles. Go ask Joe Lieberman about how accepting the left is towards people with opposing views. And you know what, since Huckabee is basically a Democrat, maybe you're right about #4.
#1 - I agree with you on this, the question is whether or not you believe and trust them. At least two of the candidates either are now, or have been, pro-abortion. Most of the others (McCain and Huckabee are the exception) favor that decision being left to the states. Huckabee is the only candidate that I am aware of that is proposing to amend the constitution to define unborn babies as people. I am not naive enough to believe that, in the current political climate, this will happen, but I think it is a debate that we, as a nation need to have.
#2 - I'm glad you said 'probably' or else I might have been offended. What is foolish, in my opinion, is that we currently have a tax system that not only punishes acheivement, but also gives the federal government theoretical control of 100% of our earnings. We also have a system that allows a majority of the people to decide that other people are too successful and to take their money. What gets lost in this jealous grab for someone elses money is that the people that make the most money are the people that make the economy go. They are the people that build businesses, spend money in the marketplace and provide jobs. By taxing them at a higher rate, you give them less money to put back into the marketplace.
#3 - After further research, I will concede that Thompson is stronger in 2nd amendment rights than Huckabee, but Huckabee is by no means weak.
#4 - The idea that a republican president can effect change with a democrat controlled congress without building bridges is questionable, to say the least. I don't forsee a massive shift in either house of congress coming this year. You may be correct that the current democrat members of congress are not interested in building bridges, but that doesn't mean that you don't try. And I also don't think that you need to compromise principles to do it. In fact, I would say that the Bush administration has done just that. They tried to work with congress on some big government projects and Bush apparently lost his veto stamp for the first 6 years of his presidency and it got him nowhere.
#1 I agree with Ed, but understand why someone would be leery of nominating a questionable pro-life candidate. The President has zero to do with changing the abortion rules in American, with the exception of nominating Supreme Court judges. I don't think any of the republican hopefuls would be stupid enough to nominate a non conservative judge (or pro-choice). It would be political suicide.
#2 The tax system is broken, almost beyond repair. IMO, Huckabee has about as much chance of passing the "Fair Tax" as he does at fixing Social Security. The system is too messed up, and the fair tax would have to have so many exemptions (i.e. old people who are now living off their retirement savings and paid their fair share of income tax, would now basically be getting taxed again over what they saved over the years). It is a great gimmick to get votes, but the fair tax is something that would take MANY years of preparation to make it work. I'd like them to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, and then to begin fixing Social Security.
#3 and #4 I don't care about either way.
- By cruzan_flame13
- By LU Armchair coach
- By AATL
- By Sly Fox