Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

Iowa played host to two right-wing rodeos last weekend, the Conservative Principles Conference and the Rediscover God in America conference. While many of the GOP 2012 presidential hopefuls graced both stages, only at Rediscover God in America did they offer Americans two revealing facts: “America should be governed by biblical law,” and that discredited historian David Barton is a genius.

A former Texas GOP official, David Barton is a “Christian historical revisionist” who contends that “the United States of America is a Christian nation” and the separation of church and state is a “liberal myth.” He is also one of the most radical Tenthers in the country who believes the federal highway system is unconstitutional. So radical was his view that even the Tenth Amendment Center disavowed his federal highway theory.

Though he “holds no advanced degrees and does not teach at any legitimate institution,” Barton is no small figure in conservative politics. He was invited by Fox News host Glenn Beck and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to teach as a “scholar” on American history. At the conference, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that “every time he hears Barton speak, he learns something new.” But Right Wing Watch’s Kyle Mantyla captured the most outrageous endorsement yet. Introduced by Barton, Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) insisted that children need to be “under his tutelage” and said that every American should be forced “at gun point” to “listen to every David Barton message”:

HUCKABEE: I don’t know anyone in America who is a more effective communicator [than David Barton.] I just wish that every single young person in America would be able to be under his tutelage and understand something about who we really are as a nation. I almost wish that there would be something like a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced, forced — at gun point no less — to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country would be better for it. I wish it’d happen.

Sheesh...this kook makes Wright look downright sane!

Not quite, but I don't see where this guy is Huck's preacher.

really?

wright's followers said every American should be held hostage, at gun point, and forced to listen to his sermons?

cuz, that's pretty fucking crazy.. and would make anything that a follower of Wright would say, sane..

and since a guy who wants to be president is saying this.. it's past fucking crazy and into scary as hell..

ADL: "Barton has delivered his revisionist presentation in the meeting halls of the racist and anti-Semitic extreme right." In the 1994 book, The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance & Pluralism in America, the Anti-Defamation League wrote that Barton "purveys a slick, cut-and-paste revisionist history of the United States and the Constitution." ADL further stated that Barton spoke at events hosted by the Christian Identity movement, which "asserts that Jews are 'the synagogue of Satan'; that Blacks and other people of color are subhuman; and that northern European whites and their American descendants are the 'chosen people' of scriptural prophesy." From the book:

On at least two occasions, Barton has delivered his revisionist presentation in the meeting halls of the racist and anti-Semitic extreme right. In July 1991, Barton addressed the Colorado summer retreat of Scriptures for America, the Identity Church group headed by firebrand Pete Peters. He was advertised as "a new and special speaker" who would "bring the following messages: America's Godly Heritage -- Was it the plan of our forefathers that America be the melting pot home of various religions and philosophies? ..." Barton's fellow-speakers at the retreat included the virulently anti-Semitic Virginia stockbroker-polemicist Richard Kelly Hoskins; "Bo" Gritz, the 1992 presidential nominee of the far-right Populist Party and a self-described "white separatist"; and Canadian Holocaust-denier Malcolm Ross.

Accidentally addressing a neo-Nazi hate group can happen to even the best of folks. But doing it twice?

Republican primary voters on Tuesday picked Daniel Webster to challenge freshman Rep. Alan Grayson in the Orlando swing district being watched nationally. Webster, in his Orlando Sentinel voter guide, lists David Barton among his prominent endorsers.

Barton has twice addressed white-supremacist organization with ties to neo-Nazis, but both times has done so accidentally, he says. He has also been a leader in the movement to rewrite American history to remove Civil Rights leaders and knock down the wall separating church from state, arguing that it is a myth. He led the recent effort to rewrite Texas textbooks to describe America as a Christian nation.

Barton addressed the Rocky Mountain Bible Retreat of Pastor Pete Peters' Scriptures for America and Kingdom Covenant College in Grants Pass, Oregon, both associated with neo-Nazi ideology. "At the time we were contacted by Pete Peters, we had absolutely no idea that he was 'part of the Nazi movement,'" Barton's assistant wrote later in explaining the speaking gigs. Barton didn't return a HuffPost message left with his assistant and Websters campiagn didn't return calls, either.

"The Religious Right's leading practitioner of this type of historical revisionism is David Barton, who runs an outfit called WallBuilders out of Aledo, Texas," Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has written. "Barton makes a lucrative living traveling the right wing's lecture circuit where he offers up a cut-and-paste version of U.S. history liberally sprinkled with gross distortions and, in some cases, outright factual errors. Crowds of fundamentalist Christians from coast to coast can't get enough of it."

Rev. Randolph Bracy, president of the Orange County NAACP, a nonpartisan civil rights organization, said that when he saw Webster advertising Barton's endorsement, it raised questions. "What does that say about your candidacy? You've got to know better in this day and time. Whether he repudiates it or not, it's his call," he told HuffPost. "You've got to know what kind of person he is. If you don't know, just Google the name and it'll tell you."

Bracy condemned Barton as a Holocaust-denier, an anti-Semite and someone who has called for the death penalty for gay and lesbian people, among other "very crude" positions. "Barton has a long history, a long history of being related to the worst fringes of our society," he said. "Recently, our national office voted to repudiate portions of the Tea Party movement for their racist fringes."

really?

wright's followers said every American should be held hostage, at gun point, and forced to listen to his sermons?

cuz, that's pretty fucking crazy.. and would make anything that a follower of Wright would say, sane..

and since a guy who wants to be president is saying this.. it's past fucking crazy and into scary as hell..

Quote from: lil mike on April 04, 2010, 07:17:12 PM
First of all, I’m not a liar.

In a blog of yours, where you implicitly tie in Tea Partiers and Republicans as a violent fringe that threatens real assassinations, threats, and racism, and explicitly addressed me as, if not an actual dangerous extremist myself, as an apologist for them.

A smear, sure, but par for the course, and I responded here:

http://thevsj.com/are-they-trying-to-get-someone-killed#comment-531

Of course the key is I listed all kind of violence, threats, calls for assassination, and vandalism done by your side (and it’s a fairly extensive list -  I didn’t even scratch the surface). 

And I suggested to you that actually, “that there are crazies on both sides and we should stick to the issues.”   A point on which you declined to agree.
 
Again in another comment:

http://thevsj.com/are-they-trying-to-get-someone-killed#comment-536

I clearly stated that, “I oppose vandalism and threats of violence, regardless of who is doing it. And as a good law and order conservative, the guilty parties should be punished with the full force of the law.

But you guys racked up quiet a history of vandalism, violence, and threats of violence. Did you ever try to do the same? Nope. You were not bothered at all when it was your side committing violence, vandalism, death threats, and of course calls for assasination of the President. ”

Your reply?   “of course the threats were much worse under us than under you..”  and then you proceeded to justify them.  And that leads us to my blog.

So you then you decided to double down on the liar meme and lie that I had made up a quote for you. The idea that I, “removed "anger and distrust" and inserted "violence and hate" you produced a false statement and attributed it to me..”   is totally false.

You lied about it.

The fact that you would lie about something that is so easily verifiable (just read my blog) is frankly rather stunning, I didn’t misquote or alter a quote of yours.  The words were clearly mine.  They were never attributed to you.

The fact that you would totally make that up is what finally had me put two and two together:

You’re fucking nuts.

I mean, really kooky, not just in the way that most girls are, although that plays a part too, but delusional, paranoia type kooky.  But more on that later.

Meanwhile, you are lying about me  “he hates America, he’s Muslim, he wasn’t born here anyway so he’s not a ‘real’ President.. he’s the anti-Christ.
(sadly, Mike agreed with 95% of that description too..and was probably nodding his head saying “yes, he is, Yes he does”)”

So you accuse me of  thinking he’s a muslim, that he is the anti-Christ, and say that I’m a birther.

Ironic for a former birther like youself.  So basically you lied about me.

And now you are lying about me lying about you… oh brother!

Now that I’ve addressed the “lies” let me address the kookiness.

I thought it was bizarre that the crucible that you decided to end our friendship on was over an issue in which I said you were partially right.  In fact, it turned out you were far less than partially correct on that as I had posted:

http://muchedumbre.com/forum/index.php/topic,26574.msg428956.html#msg428956

But for whatever reason, you decided to make that the Waterloo of our friendship.  My response?  OK.

In retrospect, I should have seen this coming.  You’ve been calling me a liar and racist for months.  Now being called a racist is about the worse insult you can make in contemporary America, so why would you say that, unless:

a.   I really posted something that was racist.
b.   You wanted to throw the biggest turd in the punchbowl.

As far as calling me a liar, I finally was able to pin you down and what specifically I had “lied” about and your response?

   

No I may decide to address them each individually in the future, although there is little reason to do that other than to make you look more foolish than you already do, but the gist, is that a lie for you seems to be something you disagree with. 

That is something I have known about you for years, going all the way back to the “18 words” debates.  If you disagree with something, then it’s a “lie.”

So I guess that’s why I’ve never really gotten all bent out of shape by your constant accusations of lying by me, since you’ve stretched that word so far out of any reasonable definition, that coming from you, it means nothing.

Now, back to you being nuts.

I don’t really have access to your life or whats going on with it, just the slice that you decide to show on the board and blogs, but I had noticed for quite a while, in a political sense you were more angry and bitter since your party has been in power than in the bad old days of “Bushitler.”  That didn’t seem logical to me, but I figured it was just a lefty thing.  But then you basically stopped debating actual policy and just started ad hominem attacks, against all Republicans of course, Tea Partiers, and … me personally.   

But… I hadn’t really done much to affirmatively defend myself.  Now here is where my theorizing begins.  I don’t know if these were your motives, and really I will never know since you will deny it regardless, but it’s well known that bitches crave drama.  You had been calling me out of months, liar, racist, and I had not really sufficiently responded.  Sure I denied them, but with no drama.  I think you had decided months ago to end our friendship, but you wanted it to go out with a bang.  So the personal attacks against me began, to provoke me into some sort of emotionally charged webboard Armageddon.   When those didn’t work, you decided to just pick a point of disagreement, and state that this is it, make it or break it, with our friendship.  The subject you picked?  The Reconcilliation vs Nuclear Option thread:

http://muchedumbre.com/forum/index.php/topic,26574.msg425617.html#msg425617


“now I've got it.. Thank God we can finally get rid of any pretense of a friendship..”

Since you being “partially right” was far to kind, it was a silly line in the sand, but my response?  It wasn’t groveling, an apology or anger or anguish.

It was, OK.

I think that enraged you; that you were being denied the drama you felt that you so richly deserved.   So when I posted my blog, which was after all, a blog that was partially directed at you, you couldn’t contain yourself and ended up posting on the board in multiple occurrences that I had attributed the statement, “Because the violence and hate of the left was justified!”   to you when I had not. 

You lied about that.  And I don’t mean in your everything-I-disagree-with-is-a-lie way, I mean in the actual meaning of the word, you deliberately posted something false, and something that is ridiculously easy to verify (just check out my blog!  http://thevsj.com/some-like-it-hate )

So there you go.  You got what you wanted: drama.  I don’t know if it’s satisfactory for you, but it will have to do.  I suspect you probably were disappointed that there were no tears shed by me for our friendship, but by the time we got to this point, you had just gotten tiring.  I could deal with the anger when you channeled it to interesting points and debate, but when it’s just one ad hominem attack after another… well it’s just exhausting, with no pay off.  I wouldn’t put up with this kind of dreary, depressing, negativity from some girl I was actually banging, so why in the world would I want to put up with it from you?

Your constant negativity and anger is just draining and not enjoyable.  So you got to end this, but frankly, I’m glad you did.  I might have put up with this several more months before doing it myself.

So to summarize, you are a slanderer, a liar, it’s not me, it’s you, and we’re done.

Also you're fucking nuts.

So I wish you luck in your future endeavors.



ok



in the end, you made up a statement and attributed it to me.. and then set conditions that I had to agree to in order for you to correct the record that you made up..

you can say anything you want.. but if I had ever attributed something to you that was not your view point, and you specifically  asked me to retract it.. I never, ever would have set up conditions for you to follow before I would retract it,  and you know it..  but you never ever did.. and when I did(after a list of previous incidences as long, if not longer, than yours btw), you danced around it and gave me a list of conditions I had to agree to before you would correct anything.. I certainly wouldn't have started off with an excuse as to why I lied..like you just did..


Quote
First of all, I’m not a liar.

In a blog of yours, where you implicitly tie in Tea Partiers and Republicans as a violent fringe that threatens real assassinations, threats, and racism, and explicitly addressed me as, if not an actual dangerous extremist myself, as an apologist for them.

A smear, sure, but par for the course, and I responded here:


if you did nothing wrong, why the need to excuse it with a list of where you felt you were smeared and just never asked me to amend it..?


while I may be the villain in many places.. this time that role is yours... not mine

Is this guy Huckabee's minister?

him:Sheesh...this kook makes Wright look downright sane!

you:Not quite,but

I don't know, I wasn't replying to that part..

Funny how Mike ignores everything said about Barton...only to declare "But he's not really Huckabee's preacher!"

The guy preaches hate out of every orifice, Huckabee tells his people we should all listen to Barton with shotguns pointed at us...but he's not an influence on Huck?

Sheesh...

I've never heard of this guy.  But you said that he was Huckabee's preacher.  So the issue of how crazy or how much of a loon he is is not really relevant to Huckabee unless he's Huck's pastor since there are plenty of crazy preachers running around.  If you want to compare him to Wright, and you do since you brought him up, then he has to be someone's preacher.  We would have never talked about Wright in 2008 if he hadn't been Obama's preacher for 20 years.  So show me Huckabee's preacher, or any major candidates preacher, but for this guy, who gives a fuck?

He's a preacher.

Huckabee's in his back pocket.

So, in effect, he's Huckabee's preacher.

When Huck's running around saying we should listen to Barton with a shotgun pointed at us, then...yeah, he's a loon. And so is Huckabee.

Let's concentrate on the man's obvious influence over Huckabee and Huck's resultant influence over millions of people and you'll see how scary this whole thing is.

The subject line made me think you had a real story.

Further digging shows you don't have anything.

You were, if I remember correctly, wary of how many years the relationship between Obama and Wright lasted. Apparently the relationship, nee' friendship, between Huckabee and Barton is nearly as long.

preacher for 20 years

A) Huck totally fucked up and he knew it--it doesn't matter who he was qouting, the outrage doesn't come from WHO he was talking about, but the fact that he said he wished American's would be indoctrinated by gunpoint. Whoopise!

B) David Barton is a well-known evangelical, Christian revisionist. I don't believe he's actually a preacher at all.

I checked out the easy to find staff page of that church... Barton isn't listed. He was apparently a guest speaker. Not a pastor there, or an elder.

Edit: I found your link and his messages linked under "other speakers". Definitely not a pastor - just a guest speaker at that church.

yup.

He is a pastor.

http://www.sojournchurch.org/message-archive/other-speakers/david-barton

Why do you keep dodging around the essential issue?  If Wright was just a pastor that Obama had known, that wouldn't be an issue.  But Wright was Obama's pastor.

You initially claimed this guy was Huckabee's pastor.  He isn't.  Game over.

But he is a major influence on Huckabee. For over twenty years. Just like you claimed Wright was to Obama.

That would be an easier argument to make if this guy was actually Huckabee's preacher, like you initially claimed.

Ahhh...but it was Huckabee who said he was a major influence, preacher or not.

Twenty years ago...

Ahhh but it was you who said he was Huckabee's preacher.

When he's not.

I used to like Huckabee. I even pondered voting for the guy. He did a good job in Arkansas with education and budget. Seemed sane on his TV show but has gone full Sheen the last couple of months. It makes me wonder if he is pandering or was good at hiding it.

I used to like Huckabee. I even pondered voting for the guy. He did a good job in Arkansas with education and budget. Seemed sane on his TV show but has gone full Sheen the last couple of months. It makes me wonder if he is pandering or was good at hiding it.

There's a Mike Huckabee mystery that won't go away.

Send a public records request seeking documents from his 12-year stint as Arkansas governor, as Mother Jones did recently, and an eyebrow-raising reply will come back: The records are unavailable, and the computer hard drives that once contained them were erased and physically destroyed by the Huckabee administration as the governor prepared to leave office and launch a presidential bid.

In 2007, during Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, the issue of the eradicated hard drives surfaced briefly, but it was never fully examined, and key questions remain. Why had Huckabee gone to such great lengths to wipe out his own records? What ever happened to a backup collection that was provided to a Huckabee aide?

Huckabee is now considering another presidential run, and if he does enter the race, he would do so as a frontrunner. Which would make the case of the missing records all the more significant. These records would shed light on Huckabee's governorship—and could provide insight into how a President Huckabee might run the country. Meanwhile, observers of Arkansas' political scene—including one of Huckabee's former GOP allies—say the episode is characteristic of a politician who was distrustful and secretive by nature.

In February, Mother Jones wrote to the office of Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe seeking access to a variety of records concerning his predecessor's tenure, including Huckabee's travel records, calendars, call logs, and emails. Beebe's chief legal counsel, Tim Gauger, replied in a letter that "former Governor Huckabee did not leave behind any hard-copies of the types of documents you seek. Moreover, at that time, all of the computers used by former Governor Huckabee and his staff had already been removed from the office and, as we understand it, the hard-drives in those computers had already been 'cleaned' and physically destroyed."

He added, "In short, our office does not possess, does not have access to, and is not the custodian of any of the records you seek."


The person who may know the most about Huckabee's records—or lack of them—is Jim Parsons. A self-described gadfly, Parsons is a former Green Beret turned good-government crusader who has filed dozens of Freedom of Information requests targeting Arkansas politicos on both sides of the aisle, including the Clintons. Shortly after Huckabee left office, Parsons went to battle with the state over his records.

In January 2007, Parsons requested "a copy of all information" on the Huckabee administration's computers the day he left office. Beebe's office provided Parsons with a January 9 memo addressed to Huckabee from the Arkansas Department of Information Systems, reporting that all of the gubernatorial hard drives had been "crushed under the supervision of a designee of [Huckabee's] office." That is, a Huckabee aide had made sure all this information was destroyed.

The memo included another tantalizing piece of information: The information stored on the drives had been saved on a backup, which was handed over to Huckabee's then-chief of staff, Brenda Turner. The history of the Huckabee administration, then, was locked away, under the watchful eye of a former aide. What did she do with this information? Where is it now? Turner, who now runs the PR shop for a Arkansas-based purveyor of Christian-themed greeting cards, did not respond to repeated requests for comment. (Contacted via his political action committee, Huckabee didn't respond to questions about his records.)

Parsons requested the backups and eventually filed a lawsuit against Huckabee and Beebe, alleging that the new governor had siphoned taxpayer money from an emergency fund to pay to replace the destroyed hard drives. Altogether, the new equipment cost over $335,000. Huckabee countered that the information on the hard drives included private details, such as social security numbers, that shouldn’t be released to the public. In the end, Parsons' suit was dismissed—largely because he didn't name Turner, who apparently possessed the records, as a plaintiff.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/huckabee-arkansas-destroyed-records

Ahhh but it was you who said he was Huckabee's preacher.

When he's not.

I'm beginning to think he was sharp enough to keep his personal reality on the down low.  At first I thought, "Crap Huck, don't join the crazy train.  I might not have agreed with all your policy takes, but you're a solid individual who's not dogmatic."  Now?  I'm thinking he just pulled back the blinds a bit and wasn't catering at all.

While dissimilar, I'm reminded how you can think you know someone, only to be jolted later.  I've told Kelly this story but it still bothers me, mainly because I lost a previously good friend over it. Someone I "thought" I knew pretty well.

Short and sweet...I'd had a friend I'd known pre-high school days who I felt was an all round good guy.  Everyone sorta went their own way after graduation, but he stayed in that wheelhouse of remaining in touch throughout the years.  We'd shoot the shit, catch up every 5 to 6 months or so throughout the years.  I've always been political, but he was sorta the "eh" guy, so I'd just keep my liberal lean to myself...plenty of other smack in the world to mull over.

THEN, I remember the day he called me after the 2008 elections.  Everything was pretty much standard in our convo, "how's tricks? doin alright? see that show the other night? blah, blah."...AND THEN..."Sooooo Chuck, who'd you vote for?"  "Obama"  "I can't believe that fuck'in nigger won!"  "Excuse me?"...it got a lot worse after that.  Me saying very little and him loosing his inner Klan with a vengeance and me finally saying..."Guess we don't need to talk anymore man, adios."  That was that.

In ALL THE YEARS I've known him, him being racist wasn't even on the radar.  At first I thought, "maybe he always was, but I just missed the signs, the comments", but I swear in all that time...not a hint, not even a drop that would set off the alarms.

Sometimes you truly just don't know.

Oy Vey, you're overlooking the 20oz porterhouse,overstuffed baked potato with sour cream and chives, grilled fresh asparagus and house salad with Italian vinaigrette on the side.. and focusing on the crimped leaf on your parsley-garnish..

This compulsion of yours to find any sliver of an error, no matter how innocuous or as in this case, a well played tongue and cheek title, so you can claim victory and then move on while ignoring and thus never addressing  the actual story is getting a wee bit tiresome.

for Christ sake, address the topic head on for once instead of looking for that error so you can pretend to claim some kind of victory or moral high-ground....

it look like he was good at hiding some things..

wonder what he's hiding..

Wait. Now that I'm thinking of it...you'll have to go to the muche to find the thread...wasn't it Huckabee's son that was involved in that dog-killing coverup at some kind of camp or something a few years ago?

I didn't want this to happen here. Or, knowing Mike as well as we do, not so much. There's oodles of topics started by us that have gone ignored. Mainly because I think the point made was so crystal clear there's no defense of what's been done. Check some of them out.

I thought maybe Mike would read one of them, and actually post; "Huh. You're right. That guy's an idiot, regardless of political affiliation, and should have said/done that." You, me, Nutty, and Chuck have all done that to some extent throughout this forum. But not Mike!

Instead, silence.

However how this is important to Huckabee is totally dependent on his relationship with him.

Michael Vick is Huckabee's son? They look nothing alike.

May I suggest you go back, read and watch everything within this thread?

Actually I was going to.  I went back to the very first thread and what did I find?  A Think Progress link!

Now, how many of their stories do I need to expose as bullshit before you stop using them as a source?

Actually I was going to.  I went back to the very first thread and what did I find?  A Think Progress link!

Now, how many of their stories do I need to expose as bullshit before you stop using them as a source?

Actually, the very first link was to another video of Huckabee professing his love for Barton from Right Wing Watch.

Then Think Progress. And Media Matters, HuffPo, then (miraculously!) a video from Huckabee's own show!

Sooo....if you wish to dispute sources, give Mike a call!

just leave it be, he's doing the same thing with the links that he did with the title..  he's looking for errors to call you on instead of addressing the issue.  he doesn't want to address the issue for some reason, and you're not going to make him.. no, really.. it's been 3 pages already and nothing but blind eye. Next, he'll bring up your spelling or something just as arbitrary in order to avoid saying anything against the pack.. it's his check-list on how to divert the topic at hand without ever once addressing the issue..

like I said, it's tiresome.

That this preacher or whatever he is is as kooky as you guys say he is.  So if the issue is not how kooky this guy is (I've given you that0

Huckabee on the Daily Show defending David Barton.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

I don't know why, but as I was watching this last night, I was cringing a bit.

See? It's not so hard to agree you're wrong!

Wait. Now that I'm thinking of it...you'll have to go to the muche to find the thread...wasn't it Huckabee's son that was involved in that dog-killing coverup at some kind of camp or something a few years ago?

As Mike Huckabee gains in the polls, the former Arkansas governor is finding that his record in office is getting more scrutiny. One issue likely to get attention is his handling of a sensitive family matter: allegations that one of his sons was involved in the hanging of a stray dog at a Boy Scout camp in 1998. The incident led to the dismissal of David Huckabee, then 17, from his job as a counselor at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, Ark. It also prompted the local prosecuting attorney— bombarded with complaints generated by a national animal-rights group—to write a letter to the Arkansas state police seeking help investigating whether David and another teenager had violated state animal-cruelty laws. The state police never granted the request, and no charges were ever filed. But John Bailey, then the director of Arkansas's state police, tells NEWSWEEK that Governor Huckabee's chief of staff and personal lawyer both leaned on him to write a letter officially denying the local prosecutor's request. Bailey, a career officer who had been appointed chief by Huckabee's Democratic predecessor, said he viewed the lawyer's intervention as improper and terminated the conversation. Seven months later, he was called into Huckabee's office and fired. "I've lost confidence in your ability to do your job," Bailey says Huckabee told him. One reason Huckabee cited was "I couldn't get you to help me with my son when I had that problem," according to Bailey. "Without question, [Huckabee] was making a conscious attempt to keep the state police from investigating his son," says I. C. Smith, the former FBI chief in Little Rock, who worked closely with Bailey and called him a "courageous" and "very solid" professional.

This is not a kid who grew up, you know, going to Boy Scout meetings and playing Little League baseball in a small town.

No, you're wrong.  I've already explained my position, and given you a freebie:  That this preacher or whatever he is is as kooky as you guys say he is.  So if the issue is not how kooky this guy is (I've given you that), and the issue isn't that this guy's a minister to Huckabee (Howey sorta/kinda admitted that he wasn't), then what is THE ISSUE I'm failing to address?

I don't have to play spelling nazi or any other tactic to avoid addressing the issue.   You pretended the issue is one thing (Huckabee's minister) than another (he's a nut!), so what else is left?  If the best answer you can come up with is go back and read everything again, even though the only issue's any of you has mentioned that this guy is kooky and/or Huckabee's preacher, is the REAL ISSUE some secret I'm supposed to divine?

Either tell me what the real issue is or don't, so far you've failed to make me interested in this topic other than to counter your accusations that I'm avoiding it.  If it's so important I'm sure Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell will let me know.

please.. that 'he's kooky' was a CYA throw-away and nothing more.. and it took you 3 pages to even make that much of an observation.. your only issue was the title until I mentioned you were playing your Kazzy-Game.. . you wanted nothing to do with this story for whatever reason.. but when it was Obama/Wright.. you went on for.. hell, I think you still do make little comments even now don't you?

Why haven't you asked "Does Huck believe in what this guy preaches".. like you did with Obama/Wright?  Wait, I know, because you know that answer and yes, he does... but not a peep on that issue, it's not essential enough, what is is that Howie labeled this thread "Huck's Preacher"

Why haven't you made some nefarious links between this guy and Huck like you did/do with Obama,Wright and even Farrakhan.. You don't have to twist,bend and squint your eyes just right to see a link between them.. it's right there, Huck wants kids indoctrinated by him and all Americans held at gun point and forced to listen to him preach..

Obama/Wright was such a HUGE deal for you.. even tho Obama repudiated the man in public, you still wonder.. hmmm, maybe Obama really hates white people like his preacher did, I mean he did stay there for 20 years and all..

But instead of anything like that or even a piddly 'why is the msm giving Huck a free pass on this stuff ( ya know, like you did with Obama/Wright)" you give a 'he's kooky' reply when cornered as a cya,throwaway answer and then focus on what the issue is for you, and that's the title of the thread  ::)..

no, sorry.. I was not wrong...  now you can go back to diverting the attention for 3 more pages on the great error of a title that Howie gave his thread..

Yes, you were wrong.

I didn't make the Wright connection, Howey did, so don't act like I made up that corollary between the two preachers.

Not quite, but I don't see where this guy is Huck's preacher.

Is this guy Huckabee's minister?

I've never heard of this guy.  But you said that he was Huckabee's preacher.  So the issue of how crazy or how much of a loon he is is not really relevant to Huckabee unless he's Huck's pastor since there are plenty of crazy preachers running around.  If you want to compare him to Wright, and you do since you brought him up, then he has to be someone's preacher.  We would have never talked about Wright in 2008 if he hadn't been Obama's preacher for 20 years.  So show me Huckabee's preacher, or any major candidates preacher, but for this guy, who gives a fuck?

The subject line made me think you had a real story.

Further digging shows you don't have anything.

Why do you keep dodging around the essential issue?  If Wright was just a pastor that Obama had known, that wouldn't be an issue.  But Wright was Obama's pastor.

You initially claimed this guy was Huckabee's pastor.  He isn't.  Game over.

If you didn't think the connection between Wright and Obama, who had a 20 year relationship, sat in the pews of that church, gave Wright credit for leading him to Christianity, dedicated his book to him, and could, "no more disown [Wright] than I can the black community," and "has been like a family to me," (whew) was important then, why do you think Huck and this Preacher is more important now?

What I don't agree with is that this guy is more important to, or has a more comprehensive relationship to Huckabee than Obama/Wright.

Why it's important to you guys to establish that link, I don't really know.  It's like you are trying to draw your very own Glenn Beck chalkboard of weird connections.  Using your logic, Obama must be a commie because of Anita Dunn and Van Jones. 

I don't think Huckabee is even running for President, so your pre-emptive smear seems like a waste of time, but even if I play along, you still have not addressed the REAL issue.  The one that I asked about in my last comment which you ignored.  What is the relationship with Huckabee and Kooky Preacher?

Though he “holds no advanced degrees and does not teach at any legitimate institution,” Barton is no small figure in conservative politics. He was invited by Fox News host Glenn Beck and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to teach as a “scholar” on American history. At the conference, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that “every time he hears Barton speak, he learns something new.” But Right Wing Watch’s Kyle Mantyla captured the most outrageous endorsement yet. Introduced by Barton, Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) insisted that children need to be “under his tutelage” and said that every American should be forced “at gun point” to “listen to every David Barton message”:

HUCKABEE: I don’t know anyone in America who is a more effective communicator [than David Barton.] I just wish that every single young person in America would be able to be under his tutelage and understand something about who we really are as a nation. I almost wish that there would be something like a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced, forced — at gun point no less — to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country would be better for it. I wish it’d happen.

Are they closer than Obama/Wright?

As close?

Not as close but still tight?

Or, have they met a few times and kooky preacher has been on Huckabees show?

I find it hard to beleive that if Huckabee and Kooky Preacher were as tight as you are implying*, this wouldn't have come out in 2008.  Why was this not an issue in 2008, when Hucabee was actually running for President and was the actual number 2 in the Republican Primaries?


*and so far that's what this seems to be, implication and insinuation.  Why can't you guys come out and clearly state what you think the relationship is?  So far only that he is Huckabee's Wright, which based on the evidence, seems ridiculous.

I'm not talking about the 'wright connection'. .. I'm talking about you only addressing the decision Howie made to title his thread 'Hucks Preacher"..your issue has been to argue that point and only that point..

over and over again.. What Huck said, not an issue with you.. whether this guy is nuttier than Wright, not an issue... whether it's a pretty huge story to have a presidential candidate advocating indoctrination of children and forced at gun point to listen to someone extreme visions, again.. not an issue for you.. the only issue is to ignore all of that and harp on whether or not Howies thread title is 100% literal and factual instead of just an easy title to make..

I don't seem to remember Obama  insisting.. "that children need to be “under his tutelage” and said that every American should be forced “at gun point” to “listen to every David Barton message”:  and then saying "I almost wish that there would be something like a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced, forced — at gun point no less — to listen to every David Barton message. " about Wright even after those 20 years.. But I do remember  the Wright/Obama being a huge thing for you.. it was just more proof he was inline with the Bill Ayers terrorists right?

but you can't even agree that this is even important...

 can you..

Really? Huck's own words don't prove any of that you?

wait, you haven't even addressed that yet, because you're still on the argument that he's not really Huck's preacher, therefore, since you've proven that literally wrong, you are somehow correct in everything else..

again... you're not...

actually it's a discussion that would have lasted about 4 posts had you not continue to argue the title of the thread instead of ignoring the words that came out of Huck's mouth for his vision for America..

so there really was no 'importance'.. just trying to teach you how to engage in an actual conversation with people again, instead of continuing along in the 'kazz-bot' mode you've seem to have fallen in our debate-hiatus..

ok, I'll post the relationship again.. I assumed you caught it the 1st time you read it or even the next time after you said you read it again..

that is the relationship.. he wants every American, at gun point if necessary, to listen to this guys message..


Oh I think his words speak for themselves on what the relationship is..  as for them being 'close' or only having met a few times? well, with that kind of proclamation he's making, I would hope he'd know something about the guy.. wouldn't you?

are they as close as wright/obama? again, I don't recall Obama, after being as close as you say he was with Wright, ever said anything like this about him, So I just assume Huck's as close, if not closer... wouldn't you?

eh, it's a dorky fam picture.. I'm sure we all have one of them in our past somewhere ;)

Damn y'all! Do I have to do everything????


http://www.newsweek.com/2007/12/15/a-son-s-past-deeds-come-back-to-bite-huckabee.html

I forgot. For some reason, this picture is creepier than any picture I ever saw of Palin and her brood:

The DOG'S creepy?


Sheesh, I give up on y'all! ;D

I'm not talking about the 'wright connection'. .. I'm talking about you only addressing the decision Howie made to title his thread 'Hucks Preacher"..your issue has been to argue that point and only that point..

over and over again.. What Huck said, not an issue with you.. whether this guy is nuttier than Wright, not an issue... whether it's a pretty huge story to have a presidential candidate advocating indoctrination of children and forced at gun point to listen to someone extreme visions, again.. not an issue for you.. the only issue is to ignore all of that and harp on whether or not Howies thread title is 100% literal and factual instead of just an easy title to make..

I don't seem to remember Obama  insisting.. "that children need to be “under his tutelage” and said that every American should be forced “at gun point” to “listen to every David Barton message”:  and then saying "I almost wish that there would be something like a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced, forced — at gun point no less — to listen to every David Barton message. " about Wright even after those 20 years.. But I do remember  the Wright/Obama being a huge thing for you.. it was just more proof he was inline with the Bill Ayers terrorists right?

but you can't even agree that this is even important...

 can you..

Really? Huck's own words don't prove any of that you?

wait, you haven't even addressed that yet, because you're still on the argument that he's not really Huck's preacher, therefore, since you've proven that literally wrong, you are somehow correct in everything else..

again... you're not...

actually it's a discussion that would have lasted about 4 posts had you not continue to argue the title of the thread instead of ignoring the words that came out of Huck's mouth for his vision for America..

so there really was no 'importance'.. just trying to teach you how to engage in an actual conversation with people again, instead of continuing along in the 'kazz-bot' mode you've seem to have fallen in our debate-hiatus..

ok, I'll post the relationship again.. I assumed you caught it the 1st time you read it or even the next time after you said you read it again..

that is the relationship.. he wants every American, at gun point if necessary, to listen to this guys message..


Oh I think his words speak for themselves on what the relationship is..  as for them being 'close' or only having met a few times? well, with that kind of proclamation he's making, I would hope he'd know something about the guy.. wouldn't you?

are they as close as wright/obama? again, I don't recall Obama, after being as close as you say he was with Wright, ever said anything like this about him, So I just assume Huck's as close, if not closer... wouldn't you?

"that children need to be “under his tutelage” and said that every American should be forced “at gun point” to “listen to every David Barton message”:  and then saying "I almost wish that there would be something like a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced, forced — at gun point no less — to listen to every David Barton message. "

Finally.  Even though it took 4 pages, you finally told me.  The REAL issue is what Huckabee agreed with this guy about.

Iowa played host to two right-wing rodeos last weekend, the Conservative Principles Conference and the Rediscover God in America conference. While many of the GOP 2012 presidential hopefuls graced both stages, only at Rediscover God in America did they offer Americans two revealing facts: “America should be governed by biblical law,” and that discredited historian David Barton is a genius.

A former Texas GOP official, David Barton is a “Christian historical revisionist” who contends that “the United States of America is a Christian nation” and the separation of church and state is a “liberal myth.” He is also one of the most radical Tenthers in the country who believes the federal highway system is unconstitutional. So radical was his view that even the Tenth Amendment Center disavowed his federal highway theory.

Though he “holds no advanced degrees and does not teach at any legitimate institution,” Barton is no small figure in conservative politics. He was invited by Fox News host Glenn Beck and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to teach as a “scholar” on American history. At the conference, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that “every time he hears Barton speak, he learns something new.” But Right Wing Watch’s Kyle Mantyla captured the most outrageous endorsement yet. Introduced by Barton, Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) insisted that children need to be “under his tutelage” and said that every American should be forced “at gun point” to “listen to every David Barton message”:

HUCKABEE: I don’t know anyone in America who is a more effective communicator [than David Barton.] I just wish that every single young person in America would be able to be under his tutelage and understand something about who we really are as a nation. I almost wish that there would be something like a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced, forced — at gun point no less — to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country would be better for it. I wish it’d happen.

Funny how Mike ignores everything said about Barton...only to declare "But he's not really Huckabee's preacher!"

The guy preaches hate out of every orifice, Huckabee tells his people we should all listen to Barton with shotguns pointed at us...but he's not an influence on Huck?

Sheesh...

So the issue of how crazy or how much of a loon he is is not really relevant to Huckabee unless he's Huck's pastor since there are plenty of crazy preachers running around.

We would have never talked about Wright in 2008 if he hadn't been Obama's preacher for 20 years.

AHA!

Hold on...

It's troublesome enough when a young child shows violence to animals. Hanging a dog at 17 is at the very least psychotic if not an indication of a  sociopath. It speaks volumes about the home life at least potentially which is why he would have wanted it covered up.

Ummm...since you like to bold/italicize stuff to make your point...I did the same thing in my very first post:


On the next page, although I didn't bold/italicize it, I made my point very clear - both on your stubborn refusal to get the point and on the real point of this conversation:

You continued this obstinate refusal to get the point...

...by naively insuinating that the only type of person who could influence Huckabee is a preacher...

We may or may not have because we didn't know about Obama or Wright (to a great extent) until then. Of course, you always had William Ayers to fall back on.



AHA!

Hold on...

Finally.  Even though it took 4 pages, you finally told me.  The REAL issue is what Huckabee agreed with this guy about.

OK actually that wasnt' your real issue, it's merely the fall back one.  It's amazing that it took this long, but rather than just being straight, you guys wanted to run round and round, trying to hang on to a false meme.  Even when I agreed with you it just seemed to irritate you more.

I've zero interest in game playing.  If you have an issue, just plainly say what it is.  What I think you wanted the issue to be was to just past this guy off as Huckabee's preacher.  Thats why no one could dare agree with me that he wasn't.

Then the attack was on me for trying to "dodge" the issue.   I just wonder how long you would have repeated this idea about him being Huckabee's preacher if I hadn't called you guys on it.

really?

wright's followers said every American should be held hostage, at gun point, and forced to listen to his sermons?

cuz, that's pretty fucking crazy.. and would make anything that a follower of Wright would say, sane..

and since a guy who wants to be president is saying this.. it's past fucking crazy and into scary as hell..

yeeeaahh, noo..

that's not it at all..

but nice try..

btw, I made my point 3rd post down from  the 1st one..and it was pretty plain..upfront, and unmistakable..

but you were just starting your disagreement with the title and that went on for a few pages.. so I'm sure you missed it..

You know, wow.  Once again, right about Think Progress.  I listened to that video and the comment about listening at gunpoint.  It was a laugh line.  There were laughs after that.  However reading the Think Progress description of the same thing, it wasn't laughs, it was applause.  Keep using TP though.  It makes things so easy for me...

Well go ahead, make the William Ayers case.  Don't just drop the name.  Make your argument.

You know, wow.  Once again, right about Think Progress.  I listened to that video and the comment about listening at gunpoint.  It was a laugh line.  There were laughs after that.  However reading the Think Progress description of the same thing, it wasn't laughs, it was applause.  Keep using TP though.  It makes things so easy for me...

But those watching the webcast of the event might be shocked to learn of Huckabee’s comments. As the Military Religious Freedom Foundation’s Chris Rodda notes, the webcast of the event edited out the “forced at gunpoint” comments — which, incidentally, received enthusiastic applause.

Isn't it interesting that back when Trent Lott made a comment about then Senator Strom Thurmond it was so explosive that he had to step down as speaker of the house. He said that we would have been a lot better off all these years if Strom had been elected in 1948.

 http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-09/politics/lott.comment_1_dixiecrat-party-lott-strom-thurmond?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

And yet Obama's preacher and this case are about things happening in the present and they are practically ignored.

Perhaps most alarming, Barton also has had a relationship with the racist and anti-Semitic fringes of the far right. According to Skipp Porteous of the Massachusetts-based Institute for First Amendment Studies, Barton was listed in promotional literature as a "new and special speaker" at a 1991 summer retreat in Colorado sponsored by Scriptures for America, a far-right ministry headed by Pastor Pete Peters. Peters' organization, which is virulently anti-Semitic and racist, spreads hysteria about Jews and homosexuals and has been linked to neo-Nazi groups. (The organization distributes a booklet called Death Penalty For Homosexuals.)

Peters' church is part of the racist "Christian Identity" movement. and three members of The Order, a violent neo-Nazi organization, formerly attended Peters' small congregation in LaPorte, Cole. After members of The Order murdered Denver radio talk show host Alan Berg in the mid 1980s, critics of Peters' ministry in Colorado charged that his hate-filled sermons had spurred the assassination.

well before he was a nationally known political star, Huckabee nurtured a relationship with America's largest white supremacist group, the Council of Conservative Citizens. The extent of Huckabee's interaction with the racist group is unclear, but this much is known: he accepted an invitation to speak at the group's annual conference in 1993 and ultimately delivered a videotaped address that was "extremely well received by the audience."

Isn't it interesting that back when Trent Lott made a comment about then Senator Strom Thurmond it was so explosive that he had to step down as speaker of the house. He said that we would have been a lot better off all these years if Strom had been elected in 1948.

 http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-09/politics/lott.comment_1_dixiecrat-party-lott-strom-thurmond?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

And yet Obama's preacher and this case are about things happening in the present and they are practically ignored.

You're kidding, right? I just went back and listened too. There was lots of "enthusiastic applause"! And words of encouragement too, something like "Yeah! That's right!"

The video, btw, came from Right Wing Watch, not TP. Now on to Think Progress...http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/31/mike-huckabee-david-barton/


Oh. I'm glad I went back, though. The last paragraph (the one mentioning applause) had another interesting note:

funny you saw the word "applause" but nothing about the comments being scrubbed, huh?

So you heard no laughter, only applause right after Huckabee made that comment?  Nahh.  Listen again.

You're kidding, right? I just went back and listened too. There was lots of "enthusiastic applause"! And words of encouragement too, something like "Yeah! That's right!"

As far as the comment being scrubbed, it may have been scrubbed on the site they were speaking about (although since the TP article stated it, that makes it questionable) but it wasn't scrubbed on the two versions you posted, so why would I mention that?

Did I say I didn't hear laughter?

I did, however, mention the laughter in my first attempt at a reply to you, which got lost in the webverse. There was a spattering of laughter following his lame jokes...even up to his gun comment. Right after that (1.24?) the applause started.

Now why did you say there wasn't any applause?

You were the one down there reading all about the laughter, not me. (In all actuality, I think that paragraph was added later.) Anyhow, here's the scrubbed video, direct from Barton's website:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJUQ4xQG064&feature=player_embedded

If you seriously didn't hear applause then I guess this conversation is over.

So there we have it.  There was laughter, and if you are admitting the obvious, that it was a joke, lame or not, then what difference does it make?  Unless he seriously as a matter of policy wants to have kids taught from this guy at gunpoint, this entire thing is a nonstory, just like I thought.

wow..

you seriously can't do it can you?  You simply can't go against anything (R) .. there is something fundamentally broken within you..you will extract any single word you can to either claim some victory of correctness or turn the  thread, like you did with the title, and now the word 'laughter'.. of course we can hear the laughter, we're not deaf or so deluded that we tune things like that out, the question is, how can you not hear the applause and the 'yeah's' spoken in agreement with what he hopes for Americans everywhere?

Huck did not get up and give his speech like a Baptist preacher giving a sermon on hell fire and damnation, with shouting and spittle flying after each syllable .. he gave a professional,well-rehearsed, dignified speech that used a little levity on something he felt deeply about.. Was there laughter? Yes, was he any less serious about his wish No. Was the crowd was in agreement, which they voiced with their applause and the 'yeah's' heard? Absolutely  ..   All you have to do is watch the 30 minute interview with Huck to see just how serious he is about this Barton guy, but hey, you don't watch these internet video's do you? Just in case they make you see or hear that which you'd rather ignore..


it's impossible to miss or misunderstand.. so what beside him being an '(R) so he gets your full support no matter what, what is your reason for the faux ignorance and this defense of this?  I had hopes of with a new webboard, you would take on a different new persona that had grown into being able to look at his party, party leaders and their ideas and speak freely against them when they were off-the-charts fucked up.. I see that is not the case, while I can say what I wish about Obama, you still can not even hear applause when it is so abundantly there for anyone else to hear if they push the 'play' button..

Yesterday Obama said "And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes."

let me guess, you didn't get that while he was being jovial instead of being bombastic, he was also being serious about a very heated topic..


Howie wants a civil discourse here.. I respect that, and simply have to  back out of this topic from here on out. I cannot sit here and watch you "Kazzy-bot" another topic..by picking and choosing the words you've elected as your 'buzz-win-words' so you can avoid the issue all together while still claiming some 'just as you thought'.. 'win'.

Howie, we all heard what Huck said.. we heard the crowd's applause and 'yeah's' in agreement with him on his vision of the Sainted David and his indoctrination of America.... it's fucked up, highly fucked up.. But he's not Obama and he's not a Lib so no one but a handful of us will care.. it's that simple.. move on..

Not with the absurd inaccuracies that Howey posted.  and honestly, he doesn’t really care about accuracy in these sort of stories so that is no surprise.

That's close to pushing the line in the sand we all agreed to...

The problem here, with all due respect, is that you dwell on one word to base your argument on, whether it be "preacher" "laughter" "applause". You mangle your world of words so only those you wish exist. All others are ignored. That's a fine thing to do in the big world of politicial discussions, hell; it's done all the time, but in our little world of political discussions it doesn't work.

This all started, not with ekg or me, but within your back and forths (if that's what you want to call them) with Kazzy on the muche: The two of you participated in a level of nit-pickery never before seen and in the process lost track of the issue. Your mind got so tangled up in Kazz-bot mode you, and she, both ended up focusing on the wrong stuff.

Unable to shake yourself out of this mode, you continued the myopic arguments with ekg to the point where she couldn't, or wouldn't reply. Issues? Don't kid yourself...you haven't discussed issues in ages. You've discussed insignificant details.

This thread turned into one of those myopic arguments. By the time all was said and done, the original intent of this thread was lost in a sea of cross-eyed jabberwocky.

The point of this thread wasn't specifically about Barton, Huckabee, children, preachers, indoctrination, or guns. You should have realized that when I changed the title. It was about the irony of the right wing's obsession with Wright and Ayers two and a half years ago. A furor that grew into a sideshow of right wing indignation. A furor that gave birth to today's ridiculous claims of birthers, socialism, mildly disguised racism, and a level of  rhetoric never seen before. A furor that had more to do with discrediting a man than the issues he represented.

Lost within all that is the issues. You've lost track of these issues, Mike, and concentrate on picking the peas out of the rice instead of enjoying the whole meal.

Was this issue with Barton convered by the mainstream media? Yes. Just not your mainstream media. Was it pounded into the ground with a hatchet and stake like your mainstream media did the issue with Wright and Myers? No. In my opinion, that's not because it's not a story - everything a politician says, does, or speaks is a story - it's because the somewhere, somehow the minds that power our mainstream media decided to concentrate on the issues rather than take a myopic view of a potential candidate's interactions with one person.