Talk:Mike Huckabee

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

You know, agglomeratimg proof of Huck's craziness could be a good new mission...-αmεσ (orator) 13:31, 21 December 2007 (EST)

"Endorsement"[edit]

Does this indicate the first agreement between RW and CP? Granted our endorsement is satirical and CP's is unofficial, but I guess that's a good as it'll get in a RW/CP agreement. --Edgerunner76 13:16, 4 January 2008 (EST)

The "endorsement" is based on the fact that:[edit]

  • Mike Huckabee isn't exactly a RationalWiki kinda guy, because:
  • RationalWikians are far more likely (95% likely actually) to prefer any Democrat over Mike Huckabee, but:
  • Mike Huckabee gets the RationalWiki nod, because:
  • He has a pretty good chance (as good as any of the other Republicans running) at getting the Republican nomination, but:
  • He's not likely to play very well in a general election, ergo:
  • RationalWiki "endorses" Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination.

I'll support the endorsement as a good RW member. But I'd like to know what is the probability that, if he wins the nomination, he will lose to Barack/Hillary? Is it 80 %, 90 %, 99 % or negligibly less than 1? Ed @but not the Poor one! 16:41, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Fine with me. He was hilarious on Colbert the other night. And remember, it's for the Republican nomination, not president. humanUser talk:Human 23:52, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Huckabee and covenant marriage[edit]

Could somebody explain why this is relevant, and why, He is the only high profile Arkansan to do so, and for a good reason. I'm sure there is a snark in there somewhere, I just don't know what it is.--Bobbing up 13:32, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Covenant marriage is a marriage that can only be ended in a fault-based divorce. He pushed it through in Arkansas, after Louisiana had put it in place. All married couples were given the option of switching their regular marriage to this kind of "super-marriage". He's the only prominent Arkansan (I know of) to do so. In other words, he's either so scared that his marriage will fall apart (maybe his wife wants to leave him?) or he wants to set an "example" to the rest of the state? Either way, it's weird, and kind of funny. Researcher 14:58, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Rich guys usually want to ditch their trophy-wives around the time aging starts to set in. --SockOfGulik 14:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)
I guess the implication is that many marriages in Arkansas end in frivolous divorce or that adultery is prevalent in Arkansas. In the U.S., them durty libruls frum up Nawth (like...well, RWians) often think of Arkansas (along with several other Southeastern states) as being a backward, uneducated, trailer park-y, redneck-inhabited place. Think of the movie Deliverance. So maybe divorce/lack of chastity is being included as part of that stereotype.--Bayesupdate 15:05, 11 January 2008 (EST)
OK, I understand. But hey, if he pushed it through it would be kinda weird if he didn't sign up to it wouldn't it?
I see what you mean. I interpreted that comment as, "He's the only prominent Arkansan to sign up to it, which makes sense because virtually nobody else in trashy Arkansas would ever have the class to do that." I could be wrong though.--Bayesupdate 15:18, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Actually, I meant because no one else in Ark. is crazy enough to do that. (It was put into place because of the high divorce rates, but also because of the fact that Huckabee is a religious whacko.) Researcher 15:28, 11 January 2008 (EST)
What's a "fault-based" divorce? --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 15:44, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Once upon a time, all divorces required that one member demonstrate fault in the other person. There were specific faults that were accepted: abandonment, infidelity, and abuse were the most common. In the US, Nevada and other states realized that, in many cases, couples wanted out of a marriage without wanting to assign (or invent) fault in the other person. However, as divorce rates have risen, this "no-fault" divorce has pissed off many religious conservatives, who want a return to loveless marriages. Researcher 15:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Wouldn't it just be easier if the government got out of this idea of what marriage is and simply went to enforcing contracts between two people? Draw up the contract to say whatever you want - they don't care. Break it and the other person takes you to court. Makes it much easier, fewer laws and a smaller government enforcing fewer laws (thats supposed to be a good thing for conservatives)... we'll even call it deregulation if need be. --Shagie 16:36, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Good luck with that. Researcher 16:47, 11 January 2008 (EST)

I think if we're going to take a dig at him we should do it for creating the law in the first place - not for signing up to it. If he had created it and not signed up to it then he'd be due some criticism for hypocrisy.--Bobbing up 16:35, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Works for me. Researcher 16:47, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Hiding the crazy[edit]

Im working now but my mission for later is to agglomerate MORE proof of huck's insanity. There were a couple front page stories, no? Could someone help me?-αmεσ (orator) 15:39, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Him wanting to abolish the IRS seems pretty crackpot. ŖєuĻєReuleauxTriangle.pnguxsay wнäτ? 16:05, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Well, I've put up the bumblebee, the angels bullets, evolution, started Huck and Chuck and just added Huck the historian. --Bobbing up 16:33, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Bob, you're a hero! I've added some more stuff. I want to make htis best-of-able, and something we can put on the front page: hating on Huck would be a good calling for us.-αmεσ (orator) 15:57, 13 January 2008 (EST)

I don't have time to play with this now, but this looks like it should have some useful information.--Bobbing up 16:41, 13 January 2008 (EST)


Gloves are off[edit]

This thread was moved to Debate:Religious beliefs and public office--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 19:59, 7 February 2008 (EST)


Feel free to bring it back here, it was just getting so damned serious and interesting, it seemed like it deserved its own space. I'm cool with it either way.--PalMD-Did that sound a little harsh? 20:11, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Lets debate about PalMD's decision to move it. Oscar 20:12, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Sure! Personally, I started the thread with the intent that it be directly associated with Huckabee. Now that he is the last surviving competitor - and that makes him a possible Vice Presidential nominee - the fact that he is a Creationist should, I believe, move front and centre of the debate about his validity for one of the highest offices in the land. As a Debate it works just fine, but it loses something in the generality of the topic given the times. Perhaps it could be a Main page Debate? What do others think? DogP 20:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

I'm going to point this out at the debate page too, but what is important is that he is a young earth creationist. Many people believe a god or gods "created" the universe, but most of them think god did it by lighting the fuse on the big bang. humanUser talk:Human 21:00, 7 February 2008 (EST)
I think PalMD is incompetent and deserves to be blocked, along with his socks User:AmesG and User:Tmtoulouse. Oscar 20:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to copy it to its new location & put a note to that effect here? SusanMiouw 20:14, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Naw, then it would "grow" in both places and get trebly confusing. humanUser talk:Human 21:00, 7 February 2008 (EST)
BOW BEFORE ME!!! Phallus of Satan 20:22, 7 February 2008 (EST)

A Choice, Not an Echo[edit]

Anybody else notice something odd about the "moment of Zen" on February 12th's episode of the Daily Show? It seems that "The Huckanut" plagiarized, wholesale, parts of Phyllis Schlafly's A Choice, Not an Echo. Odd...? --Hojidie! 17:37, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Neocon Amnesty Supporter[edit]

I imagine a world where everyone is a blue-eyed blonde, their great race being peaceful and happy. Then I think of having Huckabee for President, and that looks like not a possibility. Conservapediaisforzionists 12:03, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Well, bully for you! SusanPurrrrr 12:05, 27 February 2008 (EST)
Um...yeah, okay. Ah...what does any of this matter? Despite what many of us at RW would like to see, ol'Mike's not going to get nominated. --Edgerunner76 Buddy christ.jpg 12:07, 27 February 2008 (EST)
Huckabee is courting the one SUPER-DUPER delegate whose vote would give him the Republican nomination---Jesus.--Jdellaro 12:10, 27 February 2008 (EST)
Correction--After further research Jesus is apparently a registered Democrat, and thus, a Democratic SUPER-DUPER DELEGATE. --Jdellaro 12:16, 27 February 2008 (EST)
McCain will be nominated, and he is even worse for the white race. So no, that doesn't help. On the Democratic side, we have two white liberals, Hillary and Obama, and that isn't any better either. Conservapediaisforzionists 12:13, 27 February 2008 (EST)
But, Jesus is on Huckabee's side. --Edgerunner76 Buddy christ.jpg 12:15, 27 February 2008 (EST)
Actually (per my edit above) after further research---it turns out Jesus (at least as far back as FDR's running for governor in NY state) is a registered Democrat. Prior to that race, he didn't really vote much--just local sheriff and dog-catcher races.--Jdellaro 12:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)
You sure? McCain's already basically won, unfortuantely. Four more years of either is like four more years of Bush. Conservapediaisforzionists 12:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Well, if you want the brutally honest truth, I'm sure that Jesus isn't "for" anyone. He's been dead for two-thousand years. That's more than a bit of a roadblock towards making any endorsement. --Edgerunner76 Buddy christ.jpg 12:20, 27 February 2008 (EST)

If Jesus can create a rock so big that even he can't lift it----then dying won't stop him from voting. Work your way around THAT logic! In fact, he mailed in absentee ballots before he died for the next 200 elections! He's going to Jesusfy this election! --Jdellaro 12:27, 27 February 2008 (EST)
Remember that Jesus voted against Bush. Conservapediaisforzionists 12:28, 27 February 2008 (EST)

im scared[edit]

O_O seriously..........

theocracy scare the shit out of me.

if you guy elect a theocracist im moving to south america...........

i live in canada but everyone know canada is the USA bitch.

if the USA become a theocracy so do canada.

did people actually voted for the guy?Waronstupidity (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people voted for him in the primary. And he was a governor of a state for awhile. But despite his nice-seeming personality, he was never really a contender for president. Researcher (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

i hope he never get elected.Waronstupidity (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)