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

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.

You always do that when you are losing the argument, every time anyone makes a logical valid point.
So sorry that you are the one who can't see it.
 
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.

You always do that when you are losing the argument, every time anyone makes a logical valid point.
So sorry that you are the one who can't see it.
Ayup... talk about a reach... bitching about the Governor making them change the title of the bill. What will the libs dig up next... ROFL
 
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.

You always do that when you are losing the argument, every time anyone makes a logical valid point.
So sorry that you are the one who can't see it.

It's not my fault you can't comprehend what Huckabee wanted to do, and why.
 
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.

You always do that when you are losing the argument, every time anyone makes a logical valid point.
So sorry that you are the one who can't see it.

It's not my fault you can't comprehend what Huckabee wanted to do, and why.
Please explain why you are bitching that Huckabee had them change the title of the bill.
 
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.

Same problem your argument always has: your personal opinion isn't 'reality'. Its just your subjective opinion.

Is there anything to you but the same tired Appeal to Authority fallacy where you offer us whatever you imagine as objective truth?
 
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.

You always do that when you are losing the argument, every time anyone makes a logical valid point.
So sorry that you are the one who can't see it.

It's not my fault you can't comprehend what Huckabee wanted to do, and why.

Tell me Gilligan, from your low perspective, what DID Huckabee 'want to do, and why' ?
 
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.

Same problem your argument always has: your personal opinion isn't 'reality'. Its just your subjective opinion.

Is there anything to you but the same tired Appeal to Authority fallacy where you offer us whatever you imagine as objective truth?

ROFL... Tell me Skylar... How does my opinion serve my specific needs?

(Reader, Skylar believes that because a subject offers an opinion, LOL! ... that such circumstances; in and of themselves... represents subjectivism.

Which is to say, as I have noted MANY TIMES, that Skylar believes that objectivity DOES NOT EXIST... which is to say that Skylar rejects the very idea of objectivity... on a conceptual level.

But... in her defense, what Relativist DOES? Right? )
 
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... "Act of God" is a legal term... proving the intrinsic nature of the law and the inalienable tether between "Legality"; which is to say: THE LAW... and God.

LOL! Poor Gilligan. How cool is it that Gilligan's own citation refutes it's own pathetic, would-be point ?
 
Funny thing about being objective, when you are you discover that that things are very often subjective, and relative, especially anything that humans had something to do with, like God for instance.
 
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.

Same problem your argument always has: your personal opinion isn't 'reality'. Its just your subjective opinion.

Is there anything to you but the same tired Appeal to Authority fallacy where you offer us whatever you imagine as objective truth?

ROFL... Tell me Skylar... How does my opinion serve my specific needs?

Your subjective opinion forms the basis of your every argument. Which is pretty common. The difference is that you call your subjective opinion 'objective truth'. And then insist that since you've applied this label, its no longer subjective.

That's not how it works. Subjective is not objective. And you use the same failed Appeal to Authority fallacy in every argument. I've watched you ignore the dictionary and just make up your own definitions, insisting whatever you make up is 'objective'.

I don't think 'objective' means what you think it means.
 
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... "Act of God" is a legal term... proving the intrinsic nature of the law and the inalienable tether between "Legality"; which is to say: THE LAW... and God.

LOL! Poor Gilligan. How cool is it that Gilligan's own citation refutes it's own pathetic, would-be point ?

So Huckabee wanted it removed why, you think? Because he denies the existence of God?

lol, oops.
 
Funny thing about being objective, when you are you discover that that things are very often subjective, and relative, especially anything that humans had something to do with, like God for instance.


Especially religion. Most religions are mutually exclusive. For example, it can't be the Roman pantheon of Gods AND Jesus. Its one or the other if its either. Which means that by the logic of religion, almost every religious person is self deluded, following fallacies and imaginary conceptions of God.

But from the perspective of any given religious person, they're following 'objective truth'. And its all the other religious people that are self deluded. That's about as relativistic as it gets.

You can't even get consistency within a single religion in the same general culture over time, to say nothing of between them. Take....the Puritians, Founders, and modern Christians. The Puritans killed both adulterers and gays. The founders didn't kill adulterers but did kill gays. Modern Christians kill neither.

Did 'god' change his mind? Or did the religion change over time as culture, society and the personal context of individual followers changed? Its obviously the latter. Religion is explicitly relativistic and subjective. Which makes using it as an objective source all the more problematic.
 
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... "Act of God" is a legal term... proving the intrinsic nature of the law and the inalienable tether between "Legality"; which is to say: THE LAW... and God.

LOL! Poor Gilligan. How cool is it that Gilligan's own citation refutes it's own pathetic, would-be point ?

So Huckabee wanted it removed why, you think? Because he denies the existence of God?

lol, oops.

So do you think a person who believes in god should not be allowed to be a politician? Or is it that you don't want politicians arguing to remove the phrase act of god in the context of natural disasters because you have some extreme need to blame god for natural disasters?
 
d62fcb4d03db62905c46b966d37d38bbf851cffcf7ec08ae704966b95aa9b542.jpg
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top