0 votes

Valueless Voter's Debate if Huckabee Doesn't Clarify.

A son named Saul, an impressive young man without equal among the Israelites—a head taller than any of the others. - 1 Samuel 9:2

Saul didn't work out so well, David was after God's own heart.

But Janet Folger and others take the straw poll (who picked the delegates) to mean Huckabee is anointed as candidate.

Her bible must be different than mine (probably in the number of books as I'm Roman Catholic). Ismael came first, but Issac was the son of promise. Esau was first born, but Jacob got the blessing. Ephraim and Manasseh also were reversed. Saul came first, but David was God's man.

However something struck me - RON PAUL was the only one to vote differently on any issue from the pack that I remember seeing. And it was on some controversial questions and not just one. So his opinions can't be what the audience wants to hear. The positions were perfectly consistent with his constitutionalism. So if he won't change positions even to score a few debate points, he isn't going to change if he is in the president's office.

Even Reagan changed. Bush the elder raised taxes after it was a key campaign promise not to, and his son has abandoned every conservative principle I can think of (true con, not neo con).

I've contacted the organizations and asked - Mitt Romney and Huckabee agree on almost everything, and for the most part so did the rest of the field. Why believe one will hold true but not the other? And our sitting president would probably have answered IDENTICALLY were the debate held for the 2000 election.

Why wouldn't Huckabee flip the red or green switch for the corrupt DC people when he is around them? He wouldn't dissent on anything. Maybe even Bill Clinton would "give the right answers" if he was there. Maybe Hillary would too.

I don't wish to accuse Huckabee, but following the crowd is following the crowd. Ron Paul didn't and hasn't for decades. If there was a single dissenting vote in Congress on an issue, it was usually his. I can find nowhere Huckabee has a record of dissenting and staying on principle (if anyone here knows, enlighten me).

But I will give Huckabee a chance.

One one question on which he differed from Ron Paul - Terri Schiavo. OK, he would "save" her? What would he have done differently? Would he too wait for congress to produce a pontius pilate paper then throw it back to the courts while Terri was starving like Bush? Or would he send in the FDA swat team, the FBI, the National Guard or something? Will he charge Greer, Felos, and Schiavo with murder, violating the rights of the disabled, or whatever? Declare them enemy combatants and send them to GITMO to be waterboarded (would he do that to abortionists who have taken more innocent life than anyone from Al Quaeda)? Or would he only do what Congress and the Courts allowed him to do?

There is NO authority in the constitution for any such actions at the federal level, which is why Ron Paul said No. If Huckabee meant to say "I will only act if I get permission from the court and congress", he pressed the wrong button. "Only if they will let me" in this case means No - and for a wrong and evil reason. If he thinks he has such authority, let him clearly state what he will do as President regardless of what any other branch of government does or says.

If he means he will be a tyrant and usurper for Christ, it will be better than the rest of the tepid fools running and he can end abortion by his second week in office. But let that be clear - Ron Paul refuses to usurp even authority the courts and congress would look the other way on.

If not, he is and will be no different than the other sellout senators, corrupt congressmen, and prostituted presidents in either party we've had over my adult life.

Will Huckabee answer this? How about a Huckabee - Paul runoff?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

True Liberty vs. Social Conservative agenda

Understanding the basic meaning of Liberty is self-ownership, not being able to hurt anyone or have anyone hurt you. Morality is a doctrine of social conduct and morals are principles of establishing what is right and wrong for a society.
History has taught us many things about morality. The christian church is one of the poorest examples of this teaching. Only because it was not of the Holy Ghost but of man's misunderstanding. If we would stop trying to figure out what God the Father thinks, let the Holy Ghost lead and take the Philosophy of Liberty to our thinking then our agenda would be a popular one and this is I know Ron Paul's message to our Country. I really could care less about anyone group's agenda and I bet a $ to a doughnut this is Ron's position as well. If Ron did poorly in the debate it was because he wasn't cowtauwing to a human agenda who is attempting to think and act like God and can't! Don't tell me that anyone of you social conservatives don't have sin in your lives.


oops... that's twice I've done that.

Sin vs Crime

I think that many people confuse sin with crime. Adultery is a sin. Should it be a crime? Should people be arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed for it?

I would be surprised if most of these values voters are prepared to jail adulterers. So why are they so ready to use the law against other sinners?

All true crimes involve sin, but not all sins should be crimes. Ron Paul understands the difference,

sin vs. crime

I agree with what you said. However, banning gay marriage is more about preserving the Judeo-Christian culture that we've inherited. Gay marriage will be the final straw that breaks America's back, IMO.

The family unit is the foundation of the nation. A nation is nothing more than a large collection of families, and families are collections of individuals. Numerous studies have shown that children are best raised by a father and mother. And, it is in the nation's interest to promote healthy families.

Mostly agree


I "mostly" agree with your comments, but (as with most rules) there are exceptions. I have a friend, college professor, who is gay with three triplet daughters from his previous marriage. His former wife on many occasions has shown herself to be an unfit mother. Now the girls reside with my friend and his partner in a very loving and caring home.

I absolutely agree that the "ideal" is for a child or children to be raised in a home with two LOVING, CARING, INVOLVED parents that are "ideally" straight for purposes of better gender clarification and identity. However, at the end of the day, those three capitalized qualifications still are more important to me than the genders or orientations of the caregivers. I worked for years in the field of preventing child exploitation and the stories of little girls who told me about their dad, stepdad, grandfather, etc physically and/or sexually abusing them FAR outweighed the stories of same-sex abuse (and I trained over 250,000 kids and teens). NO ONE has a corner on "love," plain and simple. You ask me for the ideal and I will agree with your hypothesis, but in reality for the CHILD I will gladly welcome acceptable substitutes in a home where "love prevails."

I don't care to redefine the "home," but I don't think anyone can property define it in today's society of single parents anyway. Personally, preserving the Judeo-Christian culture is not even a concern of mine, if put at odds of giving children the kind of care they need and deserve.

As I've told many friends over the years who want to wage war with the gay community over gay marriage stating how "pro-family" they are, "When you are committed enough to lobby for legistation that will ban 'divorce' then talk to me about banning gay marriage." Of the two, it is obvious which poses the most threat to "the family" and which can scar the lives of the children involved. And by the way, "divorce" is something that Jesus did address whereas same-sex relations he did not.

Again, I agree with you in the "ideal" just not in the "absolute."


As you said, Jesus did address divorce. In doing so He provided a context in which it is acceptable. The fact that He didn't address homosexual marriage doesn't mean he approves of it.

He didn't address bestiality, either. But, I don't think anyone takes that to be an endorsement.



It doesn't matter if its rigged...

If you get to choose who does the voting, you can determine the outcome. They clearly chose who could vote here, and thus influenced the outcome they way they wanted. This is especially true for "True Believers".

"rigged" has a different connotation

By saying "rigged" you are making it sound like they picked the audience in order to make a certain pre-selected candidate "appear" to win. That is not what happened.

They picked an audience that cares first and foremost about promoting a certain social agenda. Huckabee will do it and Paul won't. That is why Huckabee won the poll.

Respectfully disagree

Guys and gals,
I have to respectfully disagree with the comments made thus far. This straw poll was not rigged. Huckabee more closely aligns with the issues that are important to social conservatives. I know this because I am one, myself.

The social conservative movement does not buy into the whole Libertarianism thing. They would prefer to use their political muscle to restrain certain activities that Libertarians would like to legalize (gay marriage, drugs, prostitution, etc.). I am not for legalizing these issues either, but I also am not for giving my tax dollars to the government so they can finance endless foreign wars. I am also not for my nation being bankrupted by a hijacked Federal Government. Thus, I support Ron Paul because I think it is what this nation needs at this time.

I'm not a "Johnny come lately" though. I've been a Ron Paul supporter for about 10 years since I learned of him through my subscription to The New American magazine where he consistently scores 100% on the Conservative Index. This is an analysis of his conservative voting habits.
Huckabee was able to connect on a deeper level with the particular audience at this debate. It wasn't Valueless." Rather, it was geared towards finding out WHAT the candidate will do, rather than WHY he is doing it... thus, you get the RED/GREEN light round. They don't really care so much WHY Ron Paul isn't for a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage. All they want to know is whether he will promote it.

respectfully disagree

I am like you. I am Very social conservative. When Ron Paul talks about ending the war on drugs, queer marriage, etc. it kinda backs me up till I think threw what he is saying.. The Christian social conservatives cannot legislate morality.. they have to understand this.. there will always be those people who will sin no matter what the laws are.. God himself gave us all Freedom of choice to choose right from wrong. The Bible does tell us not to do certain things but God leaves us with the choice. But from that choice comes personal responcibility.. I would love to be able to tell people to stop using drugs, stop same sex fornication, stop heterosexual fornication , etc but people will do what they will do.. writing laws to stop it will not stop it anymore than gun control laws will keep guns from criminals. I just hope that some people who call them selves Christians and look down therir noses at other people because of some things that they do, that they do not approve of, will wisen up and see That Ron Paul is the only choice. The Christians were dooped into voting for Bush (as I was). hopefully this time around they will wisen up!!!!

Continuing the discussion

I do not favor legalizing drugs, per se. But, I'm not in favor of the current Drug War either. We're clogging our prisons and justice system with non-violent drug offenders. There has to be a better way to deal with the scourge of drugs. This is one thing that Dr. Paul got wrong in the debate. He said that drug addiction was a "medical problem." To a degree it is. If someone is hooked on drugs then that is indeed a medical problem. But, it was a moral problem that led to the addiction. Thus, drug use comes down to morality.

Regarding not being able to "legislate morality..." I disagree with that. Most legislation is regarding morality. Killing, stealing, lying (perjury), etc. Almost all legislation is the legislation of Judeo-Christian morality.

Another thing to consider is that the nation that the Founders envisioned was one with maximum liberty and personal responsibility. The people of today are nowhere near as virtuous, to a large extent, as people were in generations past. Just look at the disrespect that the younger generation has for elders and people in general. And, to the extent that one will not govern himself from within, he must thus be governed from without. This is why we have ever-increasing laws prohibiting this, that, and the other.

Full blown Libertarianism can only exist amongst a moral people. Unfortunately, we have descended into a certain degree of decadence and some increased external government in necessary for civility.

On drugs... I certainly don't want America to end up looking like Amsterdam. That's why I don't favor full-fledged drug legalization.


When I get surveys like this where the question can't be answered "yes" or "no" and be properly understood, or where the answer you would choose is not offered (for me, "Libertarian" is often missing), I refuse to answer it. Sometimes that means being unable to complete the survey.

Anyone who really wants to know what I think will follow up. I refuse to be boxed in.


What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Value Voters torrent

The whole sad thing (with the exception of Ron Paul) is available for viewing at this torrent:


You'll have to get something that plays FLV's... like the player that comes with Riva FLV encoder.

Now I wish I had seen it.

According to World Net Daily (the owner of which sponsored the debate from what I gather) this debate was missed by all. Empty seats and no press. It sounded like a real snoozer. But now I am under the impression that there were Yes/No buzzers? Red lights and Green Lights? This is a farce that I'm sad I missed.

I guess there's always You Tube.