Talk:Mike Huckabee/Archive1

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

"Endorsement"
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. --Edgerunner  76 13:16, 4 January 2008 (EST)

The "endorsement" is based on the fact that:

 * 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. human  23:52, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Huckabee and covenant marriage
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? -- 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
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?- 15:39, 12 January 2008 (EST)
 * Him wanting to abolish the IRS seems pretty crackpot.  ŖєuĻє [[Image:ReuleauxTriangle.png|10px]] ux say 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.- 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)