Mike Huckabee - The Only Republican You Can Vote For? NOPE!

There is no "exception" for businesses.All taxes are paid by people. You cannot tax a business; if you try they simply add it to the price of the goods or services or subtract it from their employee's salaries.As for Huckabee's personal religious beliefs he's entitled to them - whatever they may be.One of the nasty realities about claiming to support Constitutional Rights is that we only find out about how serious one is in their professed support when it means allowing someone the quiet enjoyment of a right declared therein which personally bothers - or even disgusts - you.

Please read The Fair Tax (HR25 from the previous session); your scenario is blocked (and with good reason.) It is unreasonable to argue with someone who has not read the actual proposal.Second, when it comes to evolution .vs. creation, I will simply observe that if we're arguing about time scales then you've lost the argument.Go ask any of the purveyors of your "scientific fact" where the matter came from that created The Big Bang. That conversation gets very uncomfortable for them very fast.(PS: There is no functional disagreement between a belief in Creation and Darwin, except among a few crazies - e.g. those who insist the world suddenly appeared 5,000 years ago - and I argue that when someone comes after an individual who has religious beliefs about how the universe came to be but cannot put forward anything with scientific validity as their thesis you have to wonder - what are they afraid of?)

Uh, where'd the Cosmic Dust come from?Keep going, you'll get it - this is why I believe there is no actual disconnect between those who believe in creation and evolution - we are talking about who has the right time scale and details, not who has the right base theory.

A BIT philosophical?Those of you who have problems with the fact that there is disagreement between evolution and creation only in the fine details are quite humorous in your attempts to defend HATRED for those who have religious beliefs.Let's boil it down to brass tacks, shall we?Second Law of Thermodynamics - The Universe tends towards high entropy, that is, disorder.Now square that with the fact that the theory of evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynmics!I can keep going on this for weeks, but the bottom line here is that there has to be "something" that serves as an input, or we would not be here.Science has, thus far, been unable to provide the answer to these questions.Most real scientists are quite religious people. Why? Because fundamentally, the only answer to these questions, as we understand the Universe today, devolves into the action of a higher power.It would appear that those of you taking this approach would require that a candidate for office be an atheist! Good luck with selling that one to the American People.

Leave it to the "anon-y-mouse" to conflate reality.First, "The Universe" is a closed system. It currently is trending towards disorder but at some point in the past it did not - obviously. SOMETHING produced the "order" that was the matter in the instants before The Big Bang.Current belief is that the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate - that is, it will eventually go "extinct" through entropy. That is congruent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.What's not is what had to happen in order for The Universe to exist in the first place.BTW, I passed college-level Physics, including Thermodynamics.As for "disbelieving" evolution, as I've said repeatedly creationism and evolution are not mutually-exclusive beliefs.Don't you find it rather difficult to believe that The Universe just magically came to be in direct contravention of the Laws of Thermodynamics?The more I have studied about the physical universe and our tiny place in it, the more convinced I have become that it is not possible that a higher power was not involved.I used to be quite the believer in science as the ultimate arbitrer, entirely based on fact with no gamesmanship or bull.But the more I learned, the more I came to understand that if you ask enough questions of science you eventually run smack dab into "something we don't understand made that happen."That would be the definition of God, I suspect.You see, if you do understand "it", then as I see things, it may be many things, but one that it is not is God.

Directly from Mike Huckabee's candidacy site "on the issues":The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred. We should not banish religion from the public square, but should guarantee access to all voices and views. We should share and debate our faith, but never seek to impose it. When discussing faith and politics, we should honor the "candid" in candidate - I have much more respect for an honest atheist than a disingenuous believer.My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.Real faith makes us humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. It makes us less judgmental, as we see others with the same frailties we have. Faith gives us strength in the face of injustice and motivates us to do our best for "the least of us."Our nation was birthed in a spirit of faith - not a prescriptive one telling us whether to believe, but one acknowledging that a providence pervades our world.Now where in there can you find something that disqualifies him to be President?He seems to understand the point and purpose of the First Amendment quite well; it is you who do not.You have a "litmus test" that says that if someone has a differing set of religious beliefs from what you find acceptable, that bars him from office.He says that if you have a differing view of religious beliefs than he, that such differences must be respected and neither prohibited or preferred.Which is the bigoted perspective and which is the enlightened one?'Nuff said.There are points on which I disagree with Mr. Huckabee - specifically, I do not agree with his stand on Israel, nor do I believe the Federal Government has any business being involved in marriage whatsoever - marriage should neither be recognized and preferred or prohibited at the federal level, as such is properly a matter for the people to deal with in their own private faith communities. The government's role should be limited to enforcing privately-negotiated marriage contracts entered into between individuals; nothing more or less.I have issues with ALL candidates that are seeking the Presidency.However, when I take the tally across the board, Governor Huckabee has the fewest "disagrees" in my tally sheet, and in the areas where he and I do agree, I agree very, very strongly with him.So on balance, at present, he's the one I support.Show me someone with a better platform and I'm all ears.

Actually, I think we are speaking the same language, and you've just gotten rather uncomfortable.See, Huckabee has outlined a position of tolerance - and understanding of the Constitution.You've unveiled the reality that your personal views and positions involve neither.

Its a non-issue as he has a zero chance of being elected.

He'd have a hell of a problem, because he'd have to convince Congress to send him bills to undo the Fed, among other things.Fractional reserve banking is a GLOBAL institution, not just a US one. The United States would no more abrogate it solo than anyone else, and an attempt to do so would likely destroy our economy. Congress isn't that stupid.The part Ron Paul does not understand is that the growth of "money" is not driven by the Fed. It is in fact the "shadow banking" system - business interests that create credit - that has driven this expansion. Without stomping on that an attempt to force banking back onto a physical commodity standard (e.g. gold) simply destroys the banks. If you at the same time forbid the private creation of debt/credit, then you trash everyone who has leverage deployed instantaneously.This is so fanciful that it is not really worthy of actual consideration. Ron Paul talks a good game but if he actually understands what he's proposing he has to know that (1) he'd never be able to pass it, and (2) if he could declare himself "King" to do what he's proposing would flatten most large corporations, all investment banks, hedge funds, and money center institutions. The result would BE a depression that would make the 1930s look like a Girl Scout picnic.Fact is, The President really has only one form of "real power", which is the bull pulpit. Without the acquiescence (or outright active intervention) of the political parties there is not much the President, on his own, can accomplish.Yes, we have a mess in this country. But while lighting off a few hundred nukes and "sterilizing the land" may sound interesting academically, it is totally unrealistic when one is dealing with the real world.The solution to our monetary issues right now are to be found in forcing derivatives onto exchanges where price discovery is part and parcel of holding and trading them. This not only eliminates the "mark to model" stupidity, it also provides you with surveillance and enforcement of margin requirements.In the longer term (e.g. entitlements) the answer there is to force The Government to live under GAAP like private enterprise is forced to. That would immediately put a stop to the bullshit as the bond market vigilantes would make it impossible to sell debt into the market beyond the capacity to actually pay the check.This would force the government to repudiate or modify unfundable programs (like Medicare and Social Security) which is where the structural problem lies, lest the Bond Market start demanding 18% coupons to take Treasury Debt.

The problem with trying to rebase our currency to some physical item (whether it be gold or oil) is that "dollars" aren't the problem.Credit is.They're essentially interchangable, yet the government can only control "actual dollars."This is where the real problem lies, and its nearly impossible to deal with unless you get rid of all private extensions of credit.That's a tall order - there is no modern society that works this way....