Mitt Romney vs Mike Huckabee?

If anybody out there knows of a candidate that will abolish the welfare system, deport any and all adult illegal immigrants without question or delay, fine employers who hire illegals (knowingly or unknowingly), destroy the entitlement systems of Social Security and Medicare, supports a gradual withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, and would shift the funding for those big entitlement programs into education and research for energy independence could you let me know? That's the kind of person I want as our leader. I can go on and on about politics, and I love a good argument. I'll be going to my first caucus on Jan 3, despite the fact that I'm 25, I just never had the opportunity since they're at night and I used to work nights. Employers in Iowa aren't required to give you time off to caucus, since its not a real election. Humbug to them!
 
NevynZeddicus said:
If anybody out there knows of a candidate that will abolish the welfare system, deport any and all adult illegal immigrants without question or delay, fine employers who hire illegals (knowingly or unknowingly), destroy the entitlement systems of Social Security and Medicare, supports a gradual withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, and would shift the funding for those big entitlement programs into education and research for energy independence could you let me know? That's the kind of person I want as our leader. I can go on and on about politics, and I love a good argument. I'll be going to my first caucus on Jan 3, despite the fact that I'm 25, I just never had the opportunity since they're at night and I used to work nights. Employers in Iowa aren't required to give you time off to caucus, since its not a real election. Humbug to them!
Click to expand...

Well, then IMO, the closest you'll get is Ron Paul
  • Does not support amnesty for illegal aliens
  • Does not believe in federalized social programs not specifically enumerated by the Constitution (which includes healthcare, welfare and the Dept. of Ed.)
  • Wants to bring home all of our troops, and close our overseas bases
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
 
Atown said:
To me, because hes mormon, Romney will be a stronger supporter for christian'isk legislation and will be able to stand by his morals more so than the other candidates but i still dont like the idea of my president as a servant of satan...

Discuss
Click to expand...

I wouldn't vote for Romney based on a few factors. First and most prominent he's a mormon, which Mormonism twists and contorts almost all major Christian doctrine. Secondly, well I forgot my other thoughts but the first is enough for me.
 
Kidan said:
what exactly has he done for Arkansas?
  • Raised taxes by about 47%
  • Released a bunch of murderer and rapists out to murder and rape some more?
  • He's against home schooling, and has signed laws making it harder for parents to home school their children
  • Supports Illegal Immigration
  • He has been investigated for ethics charges 14 times, resulting in reprimands 5 times for:
  1. Personal use of government funds
  2. Funneling money through a false charity
  3. Hiding donor information
  4. Misreporting personal income
Click to expand...

And yet he's running for President of the United States and a lot of Christians plan on voting for him.
Sad. :rolleyes:
 
CGamer said:
I wouldn't vote for Romney based on a few factors. First and most prominent he's a mormon, which Mormonism twists and contorts almost all major Christian doctrine. Secondly, well I forgot my other thoughts but the first is enough for me.
Click to expand...

I agree, and most people who are so strong on their religion don't get far in the political world.
 
Ultimately my vote is determined by the lesser of two evils. I base my vote on who is the best candidate based upon what they stand for in their political career.
 
CGamer said:
I wouldn't vote for Romney based on a few factors. First and most prominent he's a mormon, which Mormonism twists and contorts almost all major Christian doctrine. Secondly, well I forgot my other thoughts but the first is enough for me.
Click to expand...

Other then the core essentials, trinity, etc, the mormon lifestyle is very similar to a normal christians, they laugh, they have good healthy fun, they do ministry, they do outreach, they have good youth programs, and generally get along pretty well. besides the fact they all serve satan, there pretty much every day average christians
 
Atown said:
Other then the core essentials, trinity, etc, the mormon lifestyle is very similar to a normal christians, they laugh, they have good healthy fun, they do ministry, they do outreach, they have good youth programs, and generally get along pretty well. besides the fact they all serve satan, there pretty much every day average christians
Click to expand...

A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf no matter how much you try to mask it.
 
and if america would open their eyes and hear with their ears, they might be able to tell the difference
 
 
currenlty reading the stuff. ya know whats kinda bugging me bout Ron paul though? is the fact that people assume "oh christians should vote for ron paul" it really reminds me of people that are like "oh yes women should vote for hilary" or "black people for obama" . there was nothing much wrong with kerry but there was assumptions of this that and the toher stating "veterans for kerry" its obnoxious and annoyingly presumptuous
 
Atown said:
currenlty reading the stuff. ya know whats kinda bugging me bout Ron paul though? is the fact that people assume "oh christians should vote for ron paul" it really reminds me of people that are like "oh yes women should vote for hilary" or "black people for obama" . there was nothing much wrong with kerry but there was assumptions of this that and the toher stating "veterans for kerry" its obnoxious and annoyingly presumptuous
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not saying Christians should vote for Ron Paul. I hate to say it, but being a Christian or not, is not really a fundamental aspect of leading our nation. If an atheist was for small government, and believed that any power not specifically enumerated for the Federal government belonged to the states and the people, I'd be for him as well.

Basically, what I'm saying is that people who believe in limited federal government, and the Constitution should vote for Ron Paul.

If you want an obscene mixture of social conservatism go with any of the other Republican candidates.

If you want start up and up socialism, go with Hilliary or Obama.
 
i'm not voting for Huckabee for many, many reasons.
I'm from Arkansas, i've seen firsthand what he's done to this state.
personally, he's not that great a guy. my mom went to college with him, my brother was roommates with his son, and my father-in-law works for the state.

I don't want him as our next president.
 
Kidan said:
Actually, I'm not saying Christians should vote for Ron Paul. I hate to say it, but being a Christian or not, is not really a fundamental aspect of leading our nation. If an atheist was for small government, and believed that any power not specifically enumerated for the Federal government belonged to the states and the people, I'd be for him as well.

Basically, what I'm saying is that people who believe in limited federal government, and the Constitution should vote for Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

prefacing with my not meaning to offend anyone buffer)
So, my basic take on the guy is that he's more or less a nutcase and as such would accomplish little to none of his ideas solely on the basis that 99% of congress would override his vetoes and ram bills through anyway. Some of this is exemplified by his voting record, e.g. his voting against giving Rosa Parks a federal award under the notion that it's not constitutional to do so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966.html

Just an article I ran across so I could at least cite that reference, but has plenty of other interesting votes of his.

I particularly like this quote from him regarding Katrina relief:

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?"

Honestly? Does this fool have no idea how valuable our coasts and ports are and that without them we'd have NO trade whatsoever or is he simply that much of an isolationist? It's purely ignorant bliss he lives in IMO and again...further exemplifies how he'd accomplish absolutely nothing he claims to support.

Further, I'd note that refusing to provide aid (I should qualify it as "well managed, appropriate aid" and I won't even begin to digress to compare LA and MS's handling of the situation) to people who've been struck by a natural disaster is completely un-compassionate and doesn't exactly paint Christianity in a good light if that's how we are understood to treat each other, so to me, that argument gets completely tossed out of the window for this guy. I'll just add to the point that this so goes in the face of "providing for the general welfare" that Congress is empowered to legislate for that it's not even funny.

I'm all for limited government, but I tend to think someone who has actually run successful business would be far more successful at balancing it with reason than this guy. Government is generally ineffective - that's it's core issue. The ratio of what it produces to the amount invested is extremely low, so I could honestly care less if we give legitimate foreign aid (e.g. keeping people from dying in impoverished nations) if the government could do it effectively - so to that extent, the effect of reducing the scope of government function is negligible in contrast to fixing the efficacy of those functions - and by increasing efficacy, the *size* ( in terms of headcount and cost - not necessarily scope) decreases. IMO, increasing the value of government should come before decreasing scope if it's even necessary in some situations.

I honestly like *some* of his ideas...I'd like to see them attached to a more sane and reasonable (and electable) candidate.

On the other hand...I love this genius bit of legislation:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/no-taxes-on-tips/

I'm just going to tell my employer to cut my salary by 75% and the rest I'll take as a tip :)
 
I've always been a very staunch small government kind of person, so I can relate to some of what Ron Paul is saying. Bottom line is this: it is not the responsibility of the government to bail people out of every bad thing that comes along. Yes, people need to help, and as Christians we should be the first ones in line to do so. But the role of the government should be extremely limited. Like I asked about in my other post in this thread, it is my opinion that we need to abolish the welfare and Social Security programs. End them, period. No straight cash payments to anybody in this country for any reason. Food stamps, programs like WIC and other programs with a specific function I think are fine, but the government handing someone a check for them to do what they want with it is not the answer to poverty and want in this country.
 
nattyg said:
I particularly like this quote from him regarding Katrina relief:

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?"

Honestly? Does this fool have no idea how valuable our coasts and ports are and that without them we'd have NO trade whatsoever or is he simply that much of an isolationist? It's purely ignorant bliss he lives in IMO and again...further exemplifies how he'd accomplish absolutely nothing he claims to support.

Further, I'd note that refusing to provide aid (I should qualify it as "well managed, appropriate aid" and I won't even begin to digress to compare LA and MS's handling of the situation) to people who've been struck by a natural disaster is completely un-compassionate and doesn't exactly paint Christianity in a good light if that's how we are understood to treat each other, so to me, that argument gets completely tossed out of the window for this guy. I'll just add to the point that this so goes in the face of "providing for the general welfare" that Congress is empowered to legislate for that it's not even funny.
Click to expand...
First off. Is it the proper function of the FEDERAL government?

Let's take a gander at your 'general welfare' clause.
Article 1 said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...
Okay. That phrase is there, but note that it is the general Welfare of the US, not its citizens. Back in that time
  • Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil
  • exemption from any unusual evil or calamity
What is important to note is that the Founders were discussing the nation, and that the 'general Welfare' clause is tied intrinsically with the common Defense clause.

I am of the firm opinion that it is NOT a function of the federal government to do anything good or ill to the general populace. No FBI, no Dept. of Education. No welfare, no social security, no HUD. The Federal government should be doing none of that stuff.

Does that mean I believe people who suffered under Ivan and Katrina should be laughed at and ignored?

Nope, and I never claimed that. I'm a Salvationist. A soldier in the Salvation Army. I'd probably be drummed off the role books, if I claimed the Sally shouldn't be in disaster areas serving people.

But there's a difference.

There is a difference between me giving a 100 dollars a week to the Sally for such uses, and the Government taking a 100 dollars a week (actually it's about thrice that) and using it for such purposes. One is charity, the other is Robin Hood style theft.

Me saying that the Government has no business giving money away to people has no bearing on my giving to charitable organizations from the goodness of my own heart.

Despite the fact that our laws are based upon the 10 commandments, we are not a religious state; and frankly, I would not wish to live in a religious state. The Federal government should not be in the business of charity. It should be solely concerned with duties, tariffs, international/interstate trade and the common defense of our borders.

Now, for your further reading pleasure, let's look at a letter from one of our former presidents that talks about this matter:
Veto of federal public works bill

March 3, 1817

To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

James Madison,
President of the United States
Click to expand...
And for good measure, some quotes from our founding fathers:
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison, regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
 
NevynZeddicus said:
I've always been a very staunch small government kind of person, so I can relate to some of what Ron Paul is saying. Bottom line is this: it is not the responsibility of the government to bail people out of every bad thing that comes along. Yes, people need to help, and as Christians we should be the first ones in line to do so. But the role of the government should be extremely limited. Like I asked about in my other post in this thread, it is my opinion that we need to abolish the welfare and Social Security programs. End them, period. No straight cash payments to anybody in this country for any reason. Food stamps, programs like WIC and other programs with a specific function I think are fine, but the government handing someone a check for them to do what they want with it is not the answer to poverty and want in this country.
Click to expand...

When you give someone a monthly check with no commitments you are signing their continued dependence on the government. If your getting paid to do nothing then they are never going to leave that system as long as it is place.

Sure some people can't work but that falls under disabilities, it is the horde of people sucking the government dry because they wont hold their own job.
 
Sqweak!

Kidan said:
I hate to say it, but being a Christian or not, is not really a fundamental aspect of leading our nation. If an atheist was for small government, and believed that any power not specifically enumerated for the Federal government belonged to the states and the people, I'd be for him as well.
Click to expand...

With respect I disagree. Being a Christian is the most important trait for leading our nation (I'd think you'd agree considering your signature O.0). That's being a true Christian not just saying you are one though. Which in practice none of us can tell if a person is for certain. If we are to believe that God is the absolute truth for all things His guidance would be paramount in all things (if it says we can do all things though Christ that applies to politics too). Don't let yourself believe that there are things that are simply "political" either everything has a moral side to it. For example I've heard arguments for taxing the rich more than poor being purely an economic decision but it's not. By what right does America have to charge a higher percentage of taxes for success? I was under the impression America was supposed to be a land of equal opportunity not just for the poor but for the rich as well. For people to enjoy the fruits of their labors. The response I get is rich people will dodge the system somehow (offshore accounts etc.) and be charged less, but, if that's true you address and fight the loopholes/wrongs that allow it, you don't commit another wrong to cover someone else's wrong, 2 wrongs don't make a right. In the argument of big vs. small government a morality can also be applied. We've witnessed billions (really trillions) spent on tacked on provisions on bills that have nothing to do with the original bill's intent. It amounts to deceiving people to get a special interests passed that results in personal gain. That makes it immoral not just "political". The result of all that is a big, bloated, government. When people abuse power they have been given it should be taken away ergo I'm for smaller government. Making such decisions is circumspect without a strong moral center. Can non-Christians have some moral center? Yes but it will never be as close to those who truly pursue the source of all truth. I would rather have a honorable, Christian moron for President than a dishonorable genius. The moron may not get much done but what he does will be for good. The genius will get things done but they would be for evil. Really I don't see how a honorable person would be a moron anyway because he would take the time and effort to pray, think and consider the opinions of others. Furthermore a honorable person would be aware and accepting of their own failings and never accept a job that they knew they couldn't do. (side note One of my personal quirks is I equate honor to doing Gods will). Also a president is not just elected on what they say they will do, or have done, but on how you believe they will make decisions on future unknown issues. To what ends would a "Constructionist" atheist use the powers he would legally have? From what source would he make his decisions?

More back on topic. I've heard a lot of candidates stances mentioned in this thread, but, not abortion and homosexuality. Where do the candidates stand on those (maybe I missed it)? Personally I'm waiting until the list of candidates narrows down to research/decide. If you aren't that's cool if you want to do the extra work, but, for me it is going to be stressing enough in researching and making a decision later so I'm not going to do it when it may be in vain. It will also give you guys the opportunity to sell your candidate too ;). Shalom all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top