will a true moderate be a serious contender for the gop nomination?

[Marokai Backbeat]

No, if you mean social moderate. However, Huckabee, who is economically moderate (one thing I like about him) might win the nomination if he decides to run.

Suckabee is economically socialist and socially fascist.

No, he at least opposed the bailouts, unlike many of the "moderates" in the GOP.

True, but his fiscal record as governor of Arkansas is worse than Bill Clinton's.

Not to distract you from your usual parade of fact-optional Huckabee bashing (and lord knows I'm certainly not a fan of him) but it's downright silly to bash Huckabee as a terrible Governor of Arkansas.

Under Huckabee, Arkansas' unemployment rate hit the lowest in it's history, in his last year in office, economic growth in Arkansas was .2% above the national average, and Huckabee left office with a budget surplus after coming into office with a budget deficit.

Perhaps some of his biggest accomplishments were funneling extra funds into the states road maintenance programs, which sparked considerable improvement in the State's road infrastructure. By 2005, Huckabee was picked from TIME Magazine as one of America's 5 best governors in the nation.

He also put funds into state health insurance programs that ended up slicing the uninsured rate for minors down considerably. According to a study from 2006, Arkansas had one of the best, if not the best, improving rates for uninsured kids, and was showing incredible improvement. Also, under Huckabee's time in office, the Arkansas welfare rolls were cut almost in half.

In short, while it may be fun to bash Huckabee for you, and he certainly is a religious wacko, a bad governor he was not. He was actually quite a good governor by any objective standpoint. That is, if you care about the positive effects of government spending and intervention. By any standard however, Huckabee did a very good job for Arkansas and made life better for individuals during his time in office, and unless you're willing to totally dismiss any positive improvement he made "just 'cause" (which I know you're entirely capable of doing) it's hard to see anything other than a good two terms for Arkansas.

None of which has anything to do with his fiscal record, making your entire post irrelevant.

"Fiscal record" is a meaningless term meant to simply say "he raised taxes" and/or "increased government spending" implying that raising taxes or increasing government spending is automatically a bad thing. When both are shown to have extraordinarily positive effects, it flies in the face of that.

[Alexander Hamilton]

No, if you mean social moderate. However, Huckabee, who is economically moderate (one thing I like about him) might win the nomination if he decides to run.

Suckabee is economically socialist and socially fascist.

No, he at least opposed the bailouts, unlike many of the "moderates" in the GOP.

True, but his fiscal record as governor of Arkansas is worse than Bill Clinton's.

Not to distract you from your usual parade of fact-optional Huckabee bashing (and lord knows I'm certainly not a fan of him) but it's downright silly to bash Huckabee as a terrible Governor of Arkansas.

Under Huckabee, Arkansas' unemployment rate hit the lowest in it's history, in his last year in office, economic growth in Arkansas was .2% above the national average, and Huckabee left office with a budget surplus after coming into office with a budget deficit.

Perhaps some of his biggest accomplishments were funneling extra funds into the states road maintenance programs, which sparked considerable improvement in the State's road infrastructure. By 2005, Huckabee was picked from TIME Magazine as one of America's 5 best governors in the nation.

He also put funds into state health insurance programs that ended up slicing the uninsured rate for minors down considerably. According to a study from 2006, Arkansas had one of the best, if not the best, improving rates for uninsured kids, and was showing incredible improvement. Also, under Huckabee's time in office, the Arkansas welfare rolls were cut almost in half.

In short, while it may be fun to bash Huckabee for you, and he certainly is a religious wacko, a bad governor he was not. He was actually quite a good governor by any objective standpoint. That is, if you care about the positive effects of government spending and intervention. By any standard however, Huckabee did a very good job for Arkansas and made life better for individuals during his time in office, and unless you're willing to totally dismiss any positive improvement he made "just 'cause" (which I know you're entirely capable of doing) it's hard to see anything other than a good two terms for Arkansas.

None of which has anything to do with his fiscal record, making your entire post irrelevant.

"Fiscal record" is a meaningless term meant to simply say "he raised taxes" and/or "increased government spending" implying that raising taxes or increasing government spending is automatically a bad thing. When both are shown to have extraordinarily positive effects, it flies in the face of that.

Still doesn't stop you from being wrong here, there, and probably somewhere else. Your definition of "extraordinarily positive effects' is a meaningless term to me, because the effects of those which you deem to be such aren't positive.

[Marokai Backbeat]

No, if you mean social moderate. However, Huckabee, who is economically moderate (one thing I like about him) might win the nomination if he decides to run.

Suckabee is economically socialist and socially fascist.

No, he at least opposed the bailouts, unlike many of the "moderates" in the GOP.

True, but his fiscal record as governor of Arkansas is worse than Bill Clinton's.

Not to distract you from your usual parade of fact-optional Huckabee bashing (and lord knows I'm certainly not a fan of him) but it's downright silly to bash Huckabee as a terrible Governor of Arkansas.

Under Huckabee, Arkansas' unemployment rate hit the lowest in it's history, in his last year in office, economic growth in Arkansas was .2% above the national average, and Huckabee left office with a budget surplus after coming into office with a budget deficit.

Perhaps some of his biggest accomplishments were funneling extra funds into the states road maintenance programs, which sparked considerable improvement in the State's road infrastructure. By 2005, Huckabee was picked from TIME Magazine as one of America's 5 best governors in the nation.

He also put funds into state health insurance programs that ended up slicing the uninsured rate for minors down considerably. According to a study from 2006, Arkansas had one of the best, if not the best, improving rates for uninsured kids, and was showing incredible improvement. Also, under Huckabee's time in office, the Arkansas welfare rolls were cut almost in half.

In short, while it may be fun to bash Huckabee for you, and he certainly is a religious wacko, a bad governor he was not. He was actually quite a good governor by any objective standpoint. That is, if you care about the positive effects of government spending and intervention. By any standard however, Huckabee did a very good job for Arkansas and made life better for individuals during his time in office, and unless you're willing to totally dismiss any positive improvement he made "just 'cause" (which I know you're entirely capable of doing) it's hard to see anything other than a good two terms for Arkansas.

None of which has anything to do with his fiscal record, making your entire post irrelevant.

"Fiscal record" is a meaningless term meant to simply say "he raised taxes" and/or "increased government spending" implying that raising taxes or increasing government spending is automatically a bad thing. When both are shown to have extraordinarily positive effects, it flies in the face of that.

Still doesn't stop you from being here, there, and probably somewhere else. Your definition of "extraordinarily positive effects' is a meaningless term to me, because the effects of those which you deem to be such aren't positive.

Except I'm not arguing rhetoric with you, Hamilton. I'm arguing the simple facts. The roads improved because of additional funding that came from additional taxes. A fact. The uninsured rate for kids turned into one of the best improving in the entire country because of additional funding. A fact. Additional taxes did not slow economic growth in the state, a simple observable fact.

We're not arguing over what color is the prettiest. There is such a thing as the simple truth. And it's about time, in our political discourse, we prioritize the truth over all else.

[Alexander Hamilton]

No, if you mean social moderate. However, Huckabee, who is economically moderate (one thing I like about him) might win the nomination if he decides to run.

Suckabee is economically socialist and socially fascist.

No, he at least opposed the bailouts, unlike many of the "moderates" in the GOP.

True, but his fiscal record as governor of Arkansas is worse than Bill Clinton's.

Not to distract you from your usual parade of fact-optional Huckabee bashing (and lord knows I'm certainly not a fan of him) but it's downright silly to bash Huckabee as a terrible Governor of Arkansas.

Under Huckabee, Arkansas' unemployment rate hit the lowest in it's history, in his last year in office, economic growth in Arkansas was .2% above the national average, and Huckabee left office with a budget surplus after coming into office with a budget deficit.

Perhaps some of his biggest accomplishments were funneling extra funds into the states road maintenance programs, which sparked considerable improvement in the State's road infrastructure. By 2005, Huckabee was picked from TIME Magazine as one of America's 5 best governors in the nation.

He also put funds into state health insurance programs that ended up slicing the uninsured rate for minors down considerably. According to a study from 2006, Arkansas had one of the best, if not the best, improving rates for uninsured kids, and was showing incredible improvement. Also, under Huckabee's time in office, the Arkansas welfare rolls were cut almost in half.

In short, while it may be fun to bash Huckabee for you, and he certainly is a religious wacko, a bad governor he was not. He was actually quite a good governor by any objective standpoint. That is, if you care about the positive effects of government spending and intervention. By any standard however, Huckabee did a very good job for Arkansas and made life better for individuals during his time in office, and unless you're willing to totally dismiss any positive improvement he made "just 'cause" (which I know you're entirely capable of doing) it's hard to see anything other than a good two terms for Arkansas.

None of which has anything to do with his fiscal record, making your entire post irrelevant.

"Fiscal record" is a meaningless term meant to simply say "he raised taxes" and/or "increased government spending" implying that raising taxes or increasing government spending is automatically a bad thing. When both are shown to have extraordinarily positive effects, it flies in the face of that.

Still doesn't stop you from being here, there, and probably somewhere else. Your definition of "extraordinarily positive effects' is a meaningless term to me, because the effects of those which you deem to be such aren't positive.

Except I'm not arguing rhetoric with you, Hamilton. I'm arguing the simple facts. The roads improved because of additional funding that came from additional taxes. A fact. The uninsured rate for kids turned into one of the best improving in the entire country because of additional funding. A fact. Additional taxes did not slow economic growth in the state, a simple observable fact.

We're not arguing over what color is the prettiest. There is such a thing as the simple truth. And it's about time, in our political discourse, we prioritize the truth over all else.

What exactly are you arguing, then? You tried to bait Libertas, but failed because your post had nothing to do with anything he said. If you don't want to debate "rhetoric", it's best to stick to a topic where you can stay on topic.

Not to mention that, ahem, you started arguing rhetoric and now claim that you aren't.

[Phony Moderate]

McGovern was a Senator from South Dakota of all places. He was a religious borderline pro-lifer whose economic policies weren't really to the left of Nixon's. Opposing an idiotic and destructive war does not make someone a far leftist.

Yes, McGovern was the last moderate to be nominated by the Democratic Party.

.........No.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You have a curious definition of "baiting" if such "baiting" consists of correcting his observably untrue nonsense. By attacking such things as his "fiscal record" you are not only implying that his overall economic record was poor, but directly accusing Huckabee of poorly managing finances.

Such fiscal policies have a direct link to broader policies such as roads and infrastructure, healthcare, and so on. They are inseparable.

Even if, for the sake of argument, nothing concerning healthcare or road management that benefits from such aforemention fiscal policies has to do with your definition of a "fiscal record," Huckabee still managed to reduce the deficit dramatically and turn it into a surplus over time. If the deficit is not a fiscal issue, and really everything is connected to each other thing in some way, then I don't know what is.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

McGovern was a Senator from South Dakota of all places. He was a religious borderline pro-lifer whose economic policies weren't really to the left of Nixon's. Opposing an idiotic and destructive war does not make someone a far leftist.

Yes, McGovern was the last moderate to be nominated by the Democratic Party.

.........No.

.........Yes.

[Phony Moderate]

McGovern was a Senator from South Dakota of all places. He was a religious borderline pro-lifer whose economic policies weren't really to the left of Nixon's. Opposing an idiotic and destructive war does not make someone a far leftist.

Yes, McGovern was the last moderate to be nominated by the Democratic Party.

.........No.

.........Yes.

Obama is a moderate....a moderate Muslim.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You have a curious definition of "baiting" if such "baiting" consists of correcting his observably untrue nonsense. By attacking such things as his "fiscal record" you are not only implying that his overall economic record was poor, but directly accusing Huckabee of poorly managing finances.

Such fiscal policies have a direct link to broader policies such as roads and infrastructure, healthcare, and so on. They are inseparable.

Even if, for the sake of argument, nothing concerning healthcare or road management that benefits from such aforemention fiscal policies has to do with your definition of a "fiscal record," Huckabee still managed to reduce the deficit dramatically and turn it into a surplus over time. If the deficit is not a fiscal issue, and really everything is connected to each other thing in some way, then I don't know what is.

Huckabee did everything, huh?

Just because someone is Governor or President at the time of something happening doesn't mean they deserve any credit. There is a legislature and numerous extra-governmental factors that play a much larger role. Until you realize those facts and stop spinning your fantasysocialistworld into every post, I see no reason to respond seriously to the arguments you make.

I mean, come on, you don't even realize that a terrible fiscal record is something entirely different from an "overall poor economic record."

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

McGovern was a Senator from South Dakota of all places. He was a religious borderline pro-lifer whose economic policies weren't really to the left of Nixon's. Opposing an idiotic and destructive war does not make someone a far leftist.

Yes, McGovern was the last moderate to be nominated by the Democratic Party.

.........No.

.........Yes.

Obama is a moderate....a moderate Muslim.

Obama is a radical...a radical Neocon.

[Phony Moderate]

McGovern was a Senator from South Dakota of all places. He was a religious borderline pro-lifer whose economic policies weren't really to the left of Nixon's. Opposing an idiotic and destructive war does not make someone a far leftist.

Yes, McGovern was the last moderate to be nominated by the Democratic Party.

.........No.

.........Yes.

Obama is a moderate....a moderate Muslim.

Obama is a radical...a radical Neocon.

Which, by American standards, is moderate.

[Alexander Hamilton]

McGovern was a Senator from South Dakota of all places. He was a religious borderline pro-lifer whose economic policies weren't really to the left of Nixon's. Opposing an idiotic and destructive war does not make someone a far leftist.

Yes, McGovern was the last moderate to be nominated by the Democratic Party.

.........No.

.........Yes.

Obama is a moderate....a moderate Muslim.

Obama is a radical...a radical Neocon.

Which, by American standards, is moderate.

Why no ?

Oh... Right.

How sad.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You have a curious definition of "baiting" if such "baiting" consists of correcting his observably untrue nonsense. By attacking such things as his "fiscal record" you are not only implying that his overall economic record was poor, but directly accusing Huckabee of poorly managing finances.

Such fiscal policies have a direct link to broader policies such as roads and infrastructure, healthcare, and so on. They are inseparable.

Even if, for the sake of argument, nothing concerning healthcare or road management that benefits from such aforemention fiscal policies has to do with your definition of a "fiscal record," Huckabee still managed to reduce the deficit dramatically and turn it into a surplus over time. If the deficit is not a fiscal issue, and really everything is connected to each other thing in some way, then I don't know what is.

Huckabee did everything, huh?

Just because someone is Governor or President at the time of something happening doesn't mean they deserve any credit. There is a legislature and numerous extra-governmental factors that play a much larger role. Until you realize those facts and stop spinning your fantasysocialistworld into every post, I see no reason to respond seriously to the arguments you make.

Many of these policies were directly his idea and due to his constant pushing that they went through. In fact, arguably his biggest success, the expansion of state health insurance coverage, got blocked in the legislature, and instead Huckabee pushed it on to become a referendum instead. Huckabee, as governor, ultimately has veto or signing power, and considering that these things were his proposals in the first place, it's utter nonsense and simply grasping at straws to try to take credit away from Huckabee.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've explained this before, but let me ask you something. And I won't actually bother asking and waiting for a response because I know you're not interested in this for a rational discussion, so let's just skip over your responses.

I ask you what his "terrible fiscal record" is, and what will you say? Such things can only mean three things: Taxes, deficit/debt, and spending. You will call these things bad, because he raised taxes and spending and so on.

It's a direct implication that such policies are bad simply for the sake of them being bad. You determine a fiscal record's success, not on your own personal assumptions as to what makes a "good" or "bad" fiscal record, but the effects of which those matters of fiscal management had on the overall economy! As such, we have to evaluate the effect on the economy, and since it was a good economy, with positive results in a variety of areas, you simply cannot say that his record was poor!

You have to give an explanation as to WHY it was bad, because none of the facts support your position. Saying it is so, doesn't make it so.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You have a curious definition of "baiting" if such "baiting" consists of correcting his observably untrue nonsense. By attacking such things as his "fiscal record" you are not only implying that his overall economic record was poor, but directly accusing Huckabee of poorly managing finances.

Such fiscal policies have a direct link to broader policies such as roads and infrastructure, healthcare, and so on. They are inseparable.

Even if, for the sake of argument, nothing concerning healthcare or road management that benefits from such aforemention fiscal policies has to do with your definition of a "fiscal record," Huckabee still managed to reduce the deficit dramatically and turn it into a surplus over time. If the deficit is not a fiscal issue, and really everything is connected to each other thing in some way, then I don't know what is.

Huckabee did everything, huh?

Just because someone is Governor or President at the time of something happening doesn't mean they deserve any credit. There is a legislature and numerous extra-governmental factors that play a much larger role. Until you realize those facts and stop spinning your fantasysocialistworld into every post, I see no reason to respond seriously to the arguments you make.

Many of these policies were directly his idea and due to his constant pushing that they went through. In fact, arguably his biggest success, the expansion of state health insurance coverage, got blocked in the legislature, and instead Huckabee pushed it on to become a referendum instead. Huckabee, as governor, ultimately has veto or signing power, and considering that these things were his proposals in the first place, it's utter nonsense and simply grasping at straws to try to take credit away from Huckabee.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've explained this before, but let me ask you something. And I won't actually bother asking and waiting for a response because I know you're not interested in this for a rational discussion, so let's just skip over your responses.

I ask you what his "terrible fiscal record" is, and what will you say? Such things can only mean three things: Taxes, deficit/debt, and spending. You will call these things bad, because he raised taxes and spending and so on.

It's a direct implication that such policies are bad simply for the sake of them being bad. You determine a fiscal record's success, not on your own personal assumptions as to what makes a "good" or "bad" fiscal record, but the effects of which those matters of fiscal management had on the overall economy! As such, we have to evaluate the effect on the economy, and since it was a good economy, with positive results in a variety of areas, you simply cannot say that his record was poor!

You have to give an explanation as to WHY it was bad, because none of the facts support your position. Saying it is so, doesn't make it so.

I don't have to say anything. I never commented on Huckabee's fiscal record.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If you actually have nothing to say, then, staying out of the discussion would be an improvement.

[Alexander Hamilton]

If you actually have nothing to say, then, staying out of the discussion would be an improvement.

If you're going to talk to yourself, about yourself, don't post it in threads I'm reading.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If you actually have nothing to say, then, staying out of the discussion would be an improvement.

If you're going to talk to yourself, about yourself, don't post it in threads I'm reading.

You have nothing to add by your own admission, in responding to a post that had nothing to do with you in the first place.

I take a dim view of bullshit. That was my motive for responding in the first place. You have a knack for spamming out any discussion and making sure no intelligent conversations can be had, as noted by your ability to respond to threads almost immediately with nothing to add clearly showing you probably don't even read half the stuff you quote.

[Alexander Hamilton]

If you actually have nothing to say, then, staying out of the discussion would be an improvement.

If you're going to talk to yourself, about yourself, don't post it in threads I'm reading.

You have nothing to add by your own admission, in responding to a post that had nothing to do with you in the first place.

I take a dim view of bullshit. That was my motive for responding in the first place. You have a knack for spamming out any discussion and making sure no intelligent conversations can be had, as noted by your ability to respond to threads almost immediately with nothing to add clearly showing you probably don't even read half the stuff you quote.

i can read fast.

not that it matters. all your posts are made up of falsehoods and assumptions, yet you take a condescending attitude towards anyone who has ever disagreed with you. i never, as you claim, admitted i had nothing to add. i had something very important to add, that is, to call out your lies and misinterpretations. thankfully, it worked and you now look like a fool. so im sure i will be appreciated for that.

but again, you can say all the bad things you want about me but it doesnt change anything. it just further exposes your hypocrisy. you're way worse at everything you claim i do i.e. making sure no intelligent conversations can be had. once you show up, everyone knows that we're going to hear the same bs and same repeated talking points, negativity, and hatred.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Oh yeah, I think we all know the crazy talking points from factcheck.org and studies from coveringkidsandfamilies.org.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Oh yeah, I think we all know the crazy talking points from factcheck.org and studies from coveringkidsandfamilies.org.

Excuse me, there is no need for an attitude here. We can all debate like mature adults.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Oh yeah, I think we all know the crazy talking points from factcheck.org and studies from coveringkidsandfamilies.org.

Excuse me, there is no need for an attitude here. We can all debate like mature adults.

Apparently, we all can't. You and I can, of course.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Oh yeah, I think we all know the crazy talking points from factcheck.org and studies from coveringkidsandfamilies.org.

Excuse me, there is no need for an attitude here. We can all debate like mature adults.

Apparently, we all can't. You and I can, of course.

Unfortunately, more and more it seems that you are correct. And I had such high hopes for Marokai...

[Alexander Hamilton]

Oh yeah, I think we all know the crazy talking points from factcheck.org and studies from coveringkidsandfamilies.org.

Excuse me, there is no need for an attitude here. We can all debate like mature adults.

Apparently, we all can't. You and I can, of course.

Unfortunately, more and more it seems that you are correct. And I had such high hopes for Marokai...

What a waste of hope. especially those hopes of a high nature.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Oh yeah, I think we all know the crazy talking points from factcheck.org and studies from coveringkidsandfamilies.org.

Excuse me, there is no need for an attitude here. We can all debate like mature adults.

Apparently, we all can't. You and I can, of course.

Unfortunately, more and more it seems that you are correct. And I had such high hopes for Marokai...

What a waste of hope. especially those hopes of a high nature.

I know; I am ashamed to admit to having wasted so much high-natured hope.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Oh yeah, I think we all know the crazy talking points from factcheck.org and studies from coveringkidsandfamilies.org.

Excuse me, there is no need for an attitude here. We can all debate like mature adults.

Apparently, we all can't. You and I can, of course.

Unfortunately, more and more it seems that you are correct. And I had such high hopes for Marokai...

What a waste of hope. especially those hopes of a high nature.

I know; I am ashamed to admit to having wasted so much high-natured hope.

Well, I can forgive you. After all, people on this site actually have tags showing they endorsed Barack Obama!