Mike Huckabee Says God's Laws Are Above Supreme Court Rulings

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm implying nothing.

No?

Huh...

Then, given that you're entire chain of responses are nothing BUT, rather sad, heavily laden implication, then you're literally saying nothing, at least according to you... .

Seems a lot of effort for such... but again, that does present as symptomatic of the above noted mental disorder; so it follows... .

I'm assuming you're crafting your homoerotic vignettes with care... maybe you're crafting them with wild abandon.

So you thought you'd again trot out the implication, even as you deny such... .

(... Mental Disorder ... )

I apologize. Your storys about queer folk jerking each other are clearly a very important part of your life.

So important that you cast about for targets to project them upon. You'd be better off accepting that your projections are really all about you.

Huh... tripling down ?

(Reader, please understand the dilemma here... Delusion; which is to say the idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder, provides that the subject is simply incapable of recognizing reality.

Now imagine if this individual were in a position to set public policy... there would be policy established wherein it would become impossible for one to so much as speak to its mental disturbance and the manifestations therein, without facing the twisted consequence of YOU being accused of BEING a sexual deviant; wherein the associated stigma would be set upon YOU, even as the would-be 'goal' was to declare such to be 'NORMAL', thus, the goal being the establishment such should otherwise carry NO POTENTIAL STIGMA.

The bad news is that such individuals as the unfortunate, deluded individual above ARE setting such insane public policy... and yes... that DOES explain why things are decaying as quickly and irreparably, as they are.

And no... there is no, even potentially, 'peaceful' means to reverse it. The only solution is to identify those who are using the above noted perversion of reasoning and cull them from any potential access to any sense of public affiliation.

It IS a horrible thing, but it is far preferable to the alternative... as the alternative presents no distinction in terms of the horror; it simply does not provide for any hope of a viable culture, on the other side.

Life is HARD... and that's all there is to it.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Huckabee wants a theocracy.

Then why didn't he do that as the Governor of Arkansas?
Our Courts would strike it down as unconstitutional so don't worry about anyone trying to run the country as a theocracy.

Cuz he can't do it doesn't mean he didn't want to.

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't it cool how forbidding deviant behavior, somehow represents a theocracy?

(The Reader should realize that such a perversion of reason, is a presentation of the mental disorder which also presents as sexual deviancy... . )

You should learn what theocratic means.

Should I?

Or should you just tell the board what you 'feel' it means?

Of course, if you did so, you'd refute yourself again and you've learned from hard won experience that such is rather painful for you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The above exchange is the intellectual equivalent of homosexual mutual materbation... OKA: a shameful waste of energy.

The gay activities of gay folks can't concern me too terribly much. I lack the interest, and the taste for specially cultivated outrage.

However, there is a great deal of interest in homosexuals among the self-described conservatives/Republicans/right-wing on this board.

I'm figuring it's some kind of secretly hopeful envy.

Explain your obvious interest in queer folk.

There's also a great deal of interest in the flu, cancers and heart disease. But I wouldn't say that such are any more of a concern than mental illness.

Does that explain your obvious interest in queer folk?

Yes, it does.

It is foolish to expect that viable policy from those whose very existence is unviable.

What is reasonable to expect from allowing the unviable to set public policy is an unviable public... thus an unviable culture. And I'm against that. So I speak out against it, a lot.

Given the overwhelming support for gay rights in this country,

your views are the new deviancy.

Yes... normal is the new deviancy Gilligan.

No Shit...

The only problem you have, is that "The New Deviancy" is simply old fashion sound reason... which is contesting old fashion deviancy and by 'old fashion', I am speaking to 'reality'.

You see Gilligan, populism does't actually alter reality.

Where populism denies reality, it merely rejects truth and installs deceit as the facade... that represents truth, subsequently subjecting the population to the unenviable consequences common to such.

History is replete with examples of such... not the least of which are the world wars and the Leftist genocides of the latter half of the 20th century.

Now was it yesterday that you asked for me to cite specific examples of individual who were leading the US into genocide?

Try to understand that YOU JUST IDENTIFIED YOURSELF as BEING ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.

That you're too stupid to understand that, is quite irrelevant, as the people that committed the above examples... were just as stupid as you.

 

[Mac1958]

Could someone provide a practical example of how this would manifest?

Is there a situation in which a Supreme Court ruling would be ignored because of something in the Bible?

Seems like a legitimate question and a legitimate concern.

.

How is that even remotely a legitimate question? You don't get to ignore the laws of our country because of something any religious text says.

Yes, that's why it's a legitimate question.

Perhaps you misunderstand.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Huckabee wants a theocracy.

Then why didn't he do that as the Governor of Arkansas?
Our Courts would strike it down as unconstitutional so don't worry about anyone trying to run the country as a theocracy.

Cuz he can't do it doesn't mean he didn't want to.

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't it cool how forbidding deviant behavior, somehow represents a theocracy?

(The Reader should realize that such a perversion of reason, is a presentation of the mental disorder which also presents as sexual deviancy... . )

You should learn what theocratic means.

Should I?

Or should you just tell the board what you 'feel' it means?

Of course, if you did so, you'd refute yourself again and you've learned from hard won experience that such is rather painful for you.

You've made rightwing bluff and bluster even more boring than it normally is.

 

[Votto]

Mike Huckabee The Supreme Court can t overrule God - CNNPolitics.com

"I respect the courts, but the Supreme Court is only that -- the supreme of the courts. It is not the supreme being. It cannot overrule God," he said. "When it comes to prayer, when it comes to life, and when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, the court cannot change what God has created."

He'd love it in Iran.

With Obama in office, it looks like he will soon have his utopia.

 

[LOki]

I'm implying nothing.

No?

Huh...

Then, given that you're entire chain of responses are nothing BUT, rather sad, heavily laden implication, then you're literally saying nothing, at least according to you... .

Seems a lot of effort for such... but again, that does present as symptomatic of the above noted mental disorder; so it follows... .

I'm assuming you're crafting your homoerotic vignettes with care... maybe you're crafting them with wild abandon.

So you thought you'd again trot out the implication, even as you deny such... .

(... Mental Disorder ... )

I apologize. Your storys about queer folk jerking each other are clearly a very important part of your life.

So important that you cast about for targets to project them upon. You'd be better off accepting that your projections are really all about you.

Huh... tripling down ?

(Reader, please understand the dilemma here... Delusion; which is to say the idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder, provides that the subject is simply incapable of recognizing reality.

Now imagine if this individual were in a position to set public policy... there would be policy established wherein it would become impossible for one to so much as speak to its mental disturbance and the manifestations therein, without facing the twisted consequence of YOU being accused of BEING a sexual deviant; wherein the associated stigma would be set upon YOU, even as the would-be 'goal' was to declare such to be 'NORMAL', thus, the goal being the establishment such should otherwise carry NO POTENTIAL STIGMA.

The bad news is that such individuals as the unfortunate, deluded individual above ARE setting such insane public policy... and yes... that DOES explain why things are decaying as quickly and irreparably, as they are.

And no... there is no, even potentially, 'peaceful' means to reverse it. The only solution is to identify those who are using the above noted perversion of reasoning and cull them from any potential access to any sense of public affiliation.

It IS a horrible thing, but it is far preferable to the alternative... as the alternative presents no distinction in terms of the horror; it simply does not provide for any hope of a viable culture, on the other side.

Life is HARD... and that's all there is to it.)

I know life is hard. That's why I'm trying to be delicate with you on this topic that you're clearly very sensitive about. I don't want your life to be harder.

Look 'Keys, I can see you're uncomfortable about discussing your motivations for creating little gay stories about people who you disagree with. You wouldn't digress into monologues to distract others (perhaps yourself too) from the verifiable fact of reality that you create such stories... that they are conceived in your very own mind.

It would be good for you if you could accept that reality about you... and if it bothers you, perhaps you can address it in a healthy manner.

 

[peach174]

Huckabee wants a theocracy.

Then why didn't he do that as the Governor of Arkansas?
Our Courts would strike it down as unconstitutional so don't worry about anyone trying to run the country as a theocracy.

Oh he tried.

Governor Won t Sign an Acts of God Bill - NYTimes.com

Governor Won't Sign an 'Acts of God' Bill
Published: March 21, 1997
"LITTLE ROCK, Ark., March 20— The Arkansas Legislature scrambled today to rewrite a bill intended to protect storm victims after Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, objected to language describing such natural phenomena as tornadoes and floods as ''acts of God.''

Mr. Huckabee said that signing the legislation ''would be violating my own conscience'' inasmuch as it described ''a destructive and deadly force as being 'an act of God.' '' The Governor, a Republican, said the legislation was an otherwise worthy bill with objectives he shared...."

Long story short, he's a religious nut.

Nice to see you admit again that religious practices CAN be unconstitutional.

He followed the Constitution and wanted them to change acts of God to natural disasters.
If he wanted a theocracy he would have signed the bill saying acts of God to begin with.
You have it backwards.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Huckabee wants a theocracy.

Then why didn't he do that as the Governor of Arkansas?
Our Courts would strike it down as unconstitutional so don't worry about anyone trying to run the country as a theocracy.

Oh he tried.

Governor Won t Sign an Acts of God Bill - NYTimes.com

Governor Won't Sign an 'Acts of God' Bill
Published: March 21, 1997
"LITTLE ROCK, Ark., March 20— The Arkansas Legislature scrambled today to rewrite a bill intended to protect storm victims after Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, objected to language describing such natural phenomena as tornadoes and floods as ''acts of God.''

Mr. Huckabee said that signing the legislation ''would be violating my own conscience'' inasmuch as it described ''a destructive and deadly force as being 'an act of God.' '' The Governor, a Republican, said the legislation was an otherwise worthy bill with objectives he shared...."

Long story short, he's a religious nut.

Nice to see you admit again that religious practices CAN be unconstitutional.

He followed the Constitution and wanted them to change acts of God to natural disasters.
If he wanted a theocracy he would have signed the bill saying acts of God to begin with.
You have it backwards.

No idiot he didn't like bad things be associated with God. He's a nut. A religious nut.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Huckabee wants a theocracy.

Then why didn't he do that as the Governor of Arkansas?
Our Courts would strike it down as unconstitutional so don't worry about anyone trying to run the country as a theocracy.

Oh he tried.

Governor Won t Sign an Acts of God Bill - NYTimes.com

Governor Won't Sign an 'Acts of God' Bill
Published: March 21, 1997
"LITTLE ROCK, Ark., March 20— The Arkansas Legislature scrambled today to rewrite a bill intended to protect storm victims after Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, objected to language describing such natural phenomena as tornadoes and floods as ''acts of God.''

Mr. Huckabee said that signing the legislation ''would be violating my own conscience'' inasmuch as it described ''a destructive and deadly force as being 'an act of God.' '' The Governor, a Republican, said the legislation was an otherwise worthy bill with objectives he shared...."

Long story short, he's a religious nut.

Nice to see you admit again that religious practices CAN be unconstitutional.

He followed the Constitution and wanted them to change acts of God to natural disasters.
If he wanted a theocracy he would have signed the bill saying acts of God to begin with.
You have it backwards.

'Act of God' is a legal term. As in the law. You've heard of the law?

 

[peach174]

Huckabee wants a theocracy.

Then why didn't he do that as the Governor of Arkansas?
Our Courts would strike it down as unconstitutional so don't worry about anyone trying to run the country as a theocracy.

Oh he tried.

Governor Won t Sign an Acts of God Bill - NYTimes.com

Governor Won't Sign an 'Acts of God' Bill
Published: March 21, 1997
"LITTLE ROCK, Ark., March 20— The Arkansas Legislature scrambled today to rewrite a bill intended to protect storm victims after Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, objected to language describing such natural phenomena as tornadoes and floods as ''acts of God.''

Mr. Huckabee said that signing the legislation ''would be violating my own conscience'' inasmuch as it described ''a destructive and deadly force as being 'an act of God.' '' The Governor, a Republican, said the legislation was an otherwise worthy bill with objectives he shared...."

Long story short, he's a religious nut.

Nice to see you admit again that religious practices CAN be unconstitutional.

He followed the Constitution and wanted them to change acts of God to natural disasters.
If he wanted a theocracy he would have signed the bill saying acts of God to begin with.
You have it backwards.

'Act of God' is a legal term. As in the law. You've heard of the law?

Yes and if he wanted a theocracy he would have signed the bill with the words acts of God.
That was the point.

 

[BluesLegend]

The US Constitution guarantees and protects our rights it does not create them, these rights are unalienable so yes even the SCOTUS is constrained by God. Lets review from the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm implying nothing.

No?

Huh...

Then, given that you're entire chain of responses are nothing BUT, rather sad, heavily laden implication, then you're literally saying nothing, at least according to you... .

Seems a lot of effort for such... but again, that does present as symptomatic of the above noted mental disorder; so it follows... .

I'm assuming you're crafting your homoerotic vignettes with care... maybe you're crafting them with wild abandon.

So you thought you'd again trot out the implication, even as you deny such... .

(... Mental Disorder ... )

I apologize. Your storys about queer folk jerking each other are clearly a very important part of your life.

So important that you cast about for targets to project them upon. You'd be better off accepting that your projections are really all about you.

Huh... tripling down ?

(Reader, please understand the dilemma here... Delusion; which is to say the idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder, provides that the subject is simply incapable of recognizing reality.

Now imagine if this individual were in a position to set public policy... there would be policy established wherein it would become impossible for one to so much as speak to its mental disturbance and the manifestations therein, without facing the twisted consequence of YOU being accused of BEING a sexual deviant; wherein the associated stigma would be set upon YOU, even as the would-be 'goal' was to declare such to be 'NORMAL', thus, the goal being the establishment such should otherwise carry NO POTENTIAL STIGMA.

The bad news is that such individuals as the unfortunate, deluded individual above ARE setting such insane public policy... and yes... that DOES explain why things are decaying as quickly and irreparably, as they are.

And no... there is no, even potentially, 'peaceful' means to reverse it. The only solution is to identify those who are using the above noted perversion of reasoning and cull them from any potential access to any sense of public affiliation.

It IS a horrible thing, but it is far preferable to the alternative... as the alternative presents no distinction in terms of the horror; it simply does not provide for any hope of a viable culture, on the other side.

Life is HARD... and that's all there is to it.)

I know life is hard. That's why I'm trying to be delicate with you on this topic that you're clearly very sensitive about. I don't want your life to be harder.

Look 'Keys, I can see you're uncomfortable about discussing your motivations for creating little gay stories about people who you disagree with. You wouldn't digress into monologues to distract others (perhaps yourself too) from the verifiable fact of reality that you create such stories... that they are conceived in your very own mind.

It would be good for you if you could accept that reality about you... and if it bothers you, perhaps you can address it in a healthy manner.

Yep... That's delusion alright.

No communicating with that.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, the would-be "Contributor" is simply incapable of objective reason... which again, is part and parcel of the mental disorder that presents sexual deviancy in some people.)

 

[Nosmo King]

Mike Huckabee The Supreme Court can t overrule God - CNNPolitics.com

"I respect the courts, but the Supreme Court is only that -- the supreme of the courts. It is not the supreme being. It cannot overrule God," he said. "When it comes to prayer, when it comes to life, and when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, the court cannot change what God has created."

The American Taliban. Worship as we do or our God's law will deliver justice. Stop thinking, start believing.

What tripe.

I agree.

Your characterization of Christians as Taliban is, indeed, tripe.

Not Christians, but Fundamentalist Christians. Just as the Taliban is made up of fundamentalist Muslims.

The trouble with that is...

Fundamentalists merely wish to return to the Fundamentals of their Faiths...

The fundamental teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are simply Love Thy Neighbor and Turn the Other Cheek...

The fundamental teachings of Muhammed are complex and involve lots of Kill the Unbelievers and Polytheists and Idolaters -type stuff...

I'll take the former over the latter any day of the week...

How do American fundamentalist Christians regard American homosexuals? Is that loving their neighbor as Jesus taught, or is it repressive dogma a la the Taliban?

 

[Kondor3]

...Sorry old timer, but we've decided to leave anti gay discrimination safely in the past too...

Feel free to continue to believe that, young pup... all it will take is a single more traditional-conservative ruling by SCOTUS, and the floodgates open again.

Perhaps, sometime shortly after January 20, 2017.

Golly...nobody's called me a "young pup" in decades. Thanks!...

All part of the friendly service... no extra charge...

...It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with facts. The FACT is that public opinion is well past the tipping point. You're NEVER going to get the gay married genie back in the bottle.

You may very well be right.

Then again...

Look at how the individual States are now assaulting Roe v. Wade on the practical level, 40+ years after its enactment...

Some things, people will let-go-of, if it's not overly onerous, and if there is no millennias-long tradition of religious teachings against it...

Other things, people will not let-go-of, even in the face of activist judges who try to foil their every move...

And the truth of the matter is, this particular fight is probably only just getting started, rather than all this talk about Fat Ladies and Singing...

 

[Kondor3]

...Racism is alive and well on both sides of the political aisle.

Indeed. BOTH sides. And by people of ALL colors.

 

[Seawytch]

...Sorry old timer, but we've decided to leave anti gay discrimination safely in the past too...

Feel free to continue to believe that, young pup... all it will take is a single more traditional-conservative ruling by SCOTUS, and the floodgates open again.

Perhaps, sometime shortly after January 20, 2017.

Golly...nobody's called me a "young pup" in decades. Thanks!...

All part of the friendly service... no extra charge...

...It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with facts. The FACT is that public opinion is well past the tipping point. You're NEVER going to get the gay married genie back in the bottle.

You may very well be right.

Then again...

Look at how the individual States are now assaulting Roe v. Wade on the practical level, 40+ years after its enactment...

Some things, people will let-go-of, if it's not overly onerous, and if there is no millennias-long tradition of religious teachings against it...

Other things, people will not let-go-of, even in the face of activist judges who try to foil their every move...

And the truth of the matter is, this particular fight is probably only just getting started, rather than all this talk about Fat Ladies and Singing...

Public opinion has hardly wavered. Just because conservatives are doing it does not mean it's what people want.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Huckabee wants a theocracy.

Then why didn't he do that as the Governor of Arkansas?
Our Courts would strike it down as unconstitutional so don't worry about anyone trying to run the country as a theocracy.

Oh he tried.

Governor Won t Sign an Acts of God Bill - NYTimes.com

Governor Won't Sign an 'Acts of God' Bill
Published: March 21, 1997
"LITTLE ROCK, Ark., March 20— The Arkansas Legislature scrambled today to rewrite a bill intended to protect storm victims after Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, objected to language describing such natural phenomena as tornadoes and floods as ''acts of God.''

Mr. Huckabee said that signing the legislation ''would be violating my own conscience'' inasmuch as it described ''a destructive and deadly force as being 'an act of God.' '' The Governor, a Republican, said the legislation was an otherwise worthy bill with objectives he shared...."

Long story short, he's a religious nut.

Nice to see you admit again that religious practices CAN be unconstitutional.

He followed the Constitution and wanted them to change acts of God to natural disasters.
If he wanted a theocracy he would have signed the bill saying acts of God to begin with.
You have it backwards.

'Act of God' is a legal term. As in the law. You've heard of the law?

Yes and if he wanted a theocracy he would have signed the bill with the words acts of God.
That was the point.

Goddam you are the dumbest poster on this board.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Then why didn't he do that as the Governor of Arkansas?
Our Courts would strike it down as unconstitutional so don't worry about anyone trying to run the country as a theocracy.

Cuz he can't do it doesn't mean he didn't want to.

ROFLMNAO!

Isn't it cool how forbidding deviant behavior, somehow represents a theocracy?

(The Reader should realize that such a perversion of reason, is a presentation of the mental disorder which also presents as sexual deviancy... . )

You should learn what theocratic means.

Should I?

Or should you just tell the board what you 'feel' it means?

Of course, if you did so, you'd refute yourself again and you've learned from hard won experience that such is rather painful for you.

You've made rightwing bluff and bluster even more boring than it normally is.

LOL! Poor Gilligan.

 

[bodecea]

The US Constitution guarantees and protects our rights it does not create them, these rights are unalienable so yes even the SCOTUS is constrained by God. Lets review from the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Are you not aware that the Declaration of Independence isn't law?