Mike Huckabee is the next president of the U.S.

[pegwinn]

Actually, Paris Hilton is taxed on the income from her TV show and personal appearances (she gets paid to appear at these parties) and also for use of her image in certain circumstances. That said, you know I also believe in inheritance tax... because that is, in fact, income to her. What she consumes doesn't come close to even her dividend income... though that might well change with Grandpa now giving most of the Hilton money to charity.

Do I think the IRS is more invasive than warrantless searches of my phone records? No. Would I prefer not to have to pay taxes? D'uh! Do I think society requires those taxes to do the things I find important? Yes.

Why is proportion important? To me it is the bottom line. The rich pay more in taxes in real dollars. I think you are conditioned to believe that proportion is the right or moral thing. If that were the case a flat tax would be to your liking. But, it isn't. I can't follow your logic here. Why does it matter how proportionate the tax is...... and how do we get the magic number that is fair and balanced (no pun intended)?

I'll cover the illogic of the IRS v. wiretapping at another time since tonight is a work night and within the hour I really need to crash. Fair enough?

 

[Dr Grump]

I think a flat tax is a fair tax....

 

[Lookout]

Gunny, if a guy running for President cannot say that he thinks the Earth is more than 6000 years old, when there is a preponderance of evidence that it is 4.54 billion years old, then we must conclude that either he has great capacity for ignoring evidence, or he is uneducated. We know he is not uneducated. Thus, if he can ignore the pile of evidence on the age of the Earth, it begs the question what other evidence will he ignore when he is President?

I'm still waiting for one single shred of evidence that he said that! If someone here can prove it, please do so or else lets just put it in the hearsay catagory

 

[jillian]

Why is proportion important? To me it is the bottom line. The rich pay more in taxes in real dollars. I think you are conditioned to believe that proportion is the right or moral thing. If that were the case a flat tax would be to your liking. But, it isn't. I can't follow your logic here. Why does it matter how proportionate the tax is...... and how do we get the magic number that is fair and balanced (no pun intended)?

I'll cover the illogic of the IRS v. wiretapping at another time since tonight is a work night and within the hour I really need to crash. Fair enough?

I did like the flat tax better. My issues with the flat tax were that the base was the assets already in somebody's possession. So, if Steve Forbes had significant and valuable business interests, they weren't taxed since they would form his basis.... if I recall correctly. I also recall that I wouldn't have been able to deduct business expenses from the "flat tax". At the time of the discussions on the issue, I ran my own business and that would have been devestating, particularly at thousands of dollars a month just for office space.

I'm told current incarnations of a flat tax are a bit different, but I'm not fluent at what those differences are.

 

[jillian]

I'm still waiting for one single shred of evidence that he said that! If someone here can prove it, please do so or else lets just put it in the hearsay catagory

onedomino already said he skirted the issue and refused to address it head on. He did say outright that he doesn't believe in evolution during one of the debates, though. Of course, when he was on Meet the Press, he kind of backtracked on that one saying "well, if we evolved, then it was G-d evolving us".....

 

[pegwinn]

I did like the flat tax better. My issues with the flat tax were that the base was the assets already in somebody's possession. So, if Steve Forbes had significant and valuable business interests, they weren't taxed since they would form his basis.... if I recall correctly. I also recall that I wouldn't have been able to deduct business expenses from the "flat tax". At the time of the discussions on the issue, I ran my own business and that would have been devestating, particularly at thousands of dollars a month just for office space.

I'm told current incarnations of a flat tax are a bit different, but I'm not fluent at what those differences are.

I think I see some of the conditioning in place now. Everyone is still hitched to the income paradigm. Because of that, they cannot get past "losing" deductions.

My deal is that if you are paying less, and I am paying less, and the .gov is getting more spendable dollars..... It cannot be bad. There is more, but bedtime is approaching within about fifteen minutes.

 

[no1tovote4]

Mike Huckabee isn't going to be the next nominee for the R's. Seriously, it isn't going to happen. After he gets nearly nothing, Ron Paul is likely to beat him in NH, it's gonna hurt. No matter how much they say it isn't.

Huckabee also was negated in Wyoming. There is a fair amount of people who don't want another solely religious sorta-conservative promoting a populist agenda... He'll be buttressed for a bit by the Evangelicals, but he isn't going to win the nomination.

 

[jillian]

I think I see some of the conditioning in place now. Everyone is still hitched to the income paradigm. Because of that, they cannot get past "losing" deductions.

My deal is that if you are paying less, and I am paying less, and the .gov is getting more spendable dollars..... It cannot be bad. There is more, but bedtime is approaching within about fifteen minutes.

Well, we can certainly discuss this further as I'm off to sleep, too. But, as always, a pleasure discussing these issues with you.

Have a good night!

 

[onedomino]

I'm still waiting for one single shred of evidence that he said that! If someone here can prove it, please do so or else lets just put it in the hearsay catagory

Google the transcripts of the Republican Presidential debates yourself. I saw him tap dance the topic in either the first or second debate. I think it was the first debate when Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo expressed disregard for the evidence of biochemical evolution on Earth. It might have been in that debate, or the 2nd debate, that Huckabee would not agree that the Earth was older than 6000 years.

Mr. Blitzer: Governor, but — but — I think the specific question — the specific question is do you believe literally it was done in six days and it occurred 6,000 years ago?

Mr. Huckabee: No, I did answer that, Wolf. I said I don’t know. My point is, I don’t know; I wasn’t there. But I believe whether God did it in six days or whether he did it in six days that represented periods of time, he did it, and that’s what’s important.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/debate-outtakes/

 

[BeefYogurt]

Mike Huckabee is the next president of the United States because he has "THE AURA OF GOD" placed upon him.
Hillarious Clinton will not because she is a she and the N.R.A. will see to it she is not.
Obama will not because the U.S. will not have a black man for president. Even the Black community is saying they wont vote for him because he will just end up being assassinated.
Romney won't because no one wants a president that wears wierd holy underwear and believes he gets his own planet and a bunch of virgins when he dies.
Ron Paul is just a creapy freak.
McCain is too old
Edwards looks too swish and like a little boy ready to cry.
I have $10.00 that says Mike Huckabee is the next President...any takers? I could use some extra cash.

You're on.

You say Huckabee is the next President, I say he is a $200 question on Jeopardy in 2011. The Republicans won't have him. Its likely to be McCain, Romney, Giuliani...

But most likely Ron Paul.

 

[jillian]

You guys don't get taxed on interest income?? Really??

We do get taxed on interest income. Under a "fair tax" we wouldn't be. But the money made by the middle class doesn't predominantly come from interest income or dividends. That only applies to the wealthy.

I remember when they were originally talking about the "flat tax" (as opposed to the "fair tax"... which is their latest effort to kill social security and social programs, IMO) and people calling it the "help steve forbes keep his fortune" tax. heh....

 

[Lookout]

I would have felt the same way about the people who imprisoned Galileo. I think it's a legit call...

If he *chooses* to believe that against all scientific evidence to the contrary, then he is free to stay a minister. He isn't equipped to be president of the U.S.

And again I ask...where is the proof that he believes that...No one has any proof he said it all and yet rambling as if it is a true statement.

 

[Lookout]

You're on.

You say Huckabee is the next President, I say he is a $200 question on Jeopardy in 2011. The Republicans won't have him. Its likely to be McCain, Romney, Giuliani...

But most likely Ron Paul.

Gotcha down

 

[Lookout]

Mike Huckabee isn't going to be the next nominee for the R's. Seriously, it isn't going to happen. After he gets nearly nothing, Ron Paul is likely to beat him in NH, it's gonna hurt. No matter how much they say it isn't.

Huckabee also was negated in Wyoming. There is a fair amount of people who don't want another solely religious sorta-conservative promoting a populist agenda... He'll be buttressed for a bit by the Evangelicals, but he isn't going to win the nomination.

So are you in or out? There are starving children charities that could use the money.

 

[Lookout]

Google the transcripts of the Republican Presidential debates yourself. I saw him tap dance the topic in either the first or second debate. I think it was the first debate when Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo expressed disregard for the evidence of biochemical evolution on Earth. It might have been in that debate, or the 2nd debate, that Huckabee would not agree that the Earth was older than 6000 years.

That is refering to the 6 days in the book of genesis. That does not say he believes the planet is only 6000. And where is this 6000 years comming from. Religeonists have concluded that creation (of Adam & Eve, not the planet) took place 4002 B.C. Which is crazy in its own right. When religeonists are talking about creation happening at 4002 b.c. they are talking about Adam & eVE, NOT THE PLANET. In Genesis God made man long before Adam & Eve. That is how Cain was able to go to Nod and take a wife. If you people are going to argue the bible or creationism, atleast educate yourselves.

 

[Taomon]

Mike Huckabee is the next president of the United States because he has "THE AURA OF GOD" placed upon him.
Hillarious Clinton will not because she is a she and the N.R.A. will see to it she is not.
Obama will not because the U.S. will not have a black man for president. Even the Black community is saying they wont vote for him because he will just end up being assassinated.
Romney won't because no one wants a president that wears wierd holy underwear and believes he gets his own planet and a bunch of virgins when he dies.
Ron Paul is just a creapy freak.
McCain is too old
Edwards looks too swish and like a little boy ready to cry.
I have $10.00 that says Mike Huckabee is the next President...any takers? I could use some extra cash.

How white of you.

 

[Lookout]

Ok-Ok-Ok, I found it after some serious digging. Here is the Mike Huckabee interview. It does not say he thinks the earth is 6000 years old. Look for yourself, primates.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVd69n1EhrU&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Lookout]

How white of you.

Child hater! Let me clarify for everyone here. All proceeds from post #1 will go to either Christians Children fund or Childrens Cancer Society. If that is a problem for you, Don't take me up on it.

 

[Shogun]

That is refering to the 6 days in the book of genesis. That does not say he believes the planet is only 6000. And where is this 6000 years comming from. Religeonists have concluded that creation (of Adam & Eve, not the planet) took place 4002 B.C. Which is crazy in its own right. When religeonists are talking about creation happening at 4002 b.c. they are talking about Adam & eVE, NOT THE PLANET. In Genesis God made man long before Adam & Eve. That is how Cain was able to go to Nod and take a wife. If you people are going to argue the bible or creationism, atleast educate yourselves.

I, for one, would love to see your sources that convey that god made man LONG before Adam and eve, thus, solving the mystery of post-eden mates for A&E's progeny.

Indeed, the very idea that people think it is crazy that the Earth *Poof* appeared circa 6k years ago is a small step for science and a giant leap for reason. Certainly, blasphemy from back in the day.

 

[onedomino]

That is refering to the 6 days in the book of genesis. That does not say he believes the planet is only 6000. And where is this 6000 years comming from. Religeonists have concluded that creation (of Adam & Eve, not the planet) took place 4002 B.C. Which is crazy in its own right. When religeonists are talking about creation happening at 4002 b.c. they are talking about Adam & eVE, NOT THE PLANET. In Genesis God made man long before Adam & Eve. That is how Cain was able to go to Nod and take a wife. If you people are going to argue the bible or creationism, atleast educate yourselves.

What are you talking about? Why don't you actually read what I wrote. And do not include me in "you people." I would be the last person on this board to argue in favor of Creationism. Moreover, Blitzer specifically asked Huckabee if he believed the world was created 6000 years ago and Huckabee responded "I don't know," which is about as delusional or uneducated as it gets.

You are the one who started this thread with that moronic first post, wanting to bet money, the "aura of God" nonsense, the "she is a she," "swishy Edwards," and your other brilliant political observations. What penetrating insight. You are an example of our all inclusive democracy, and that almost anyone over 18 with a pulse is allowed to vote.