Yeah, Huckabee seemed more sane to me in the past too. But the more I hear from him, the less I like him.
Have you guys seen his recent fundraising letter where he blamed the economic crisis on lack of prayer in schools? It’s a good one.
PDF link: http://atheist-community.org/docs/Huckabee-12-2010.pdf
Christ explicitly said that not a dot in the Law will change till the end of times.
Umm, Mike?
Clearly math hates God too! :rolleyes:
CMC fnord!
That was 68 years ago, not 50. Also, none of the people in that case were my parents or grandparents.
According to the Cherry-pickers’ Bible, though, he was referring to the law of gravity.
Verily, I say unto thee, that donning the cape will not enable thee to fly.
When Huckabee’s parents and grandparents were in school, there was no reference to god in the Pledge of Allegiance, so what the heck is he on about? Fool.
You mean “intelligent falling”.
Sorry but I’m kinda missing it - what does it tell?
I’m assuming here that his figures are accurate, and that these really are the biggest concentrations of unwed mothers - so what would be the problem?
While I hate what the prat stands for, I do think he has a point in this instance.
Portman is glorifying single motherhood, and while I am happy for her and would totally support her decision I am also able to recognise that for a large majority of people, single motherhood (or fatherhood for that matter) is not a very good choice.
There is a significant cost to having kids, not only in terms of financial, which is only part of it, but also in terms of opportunity. A single mother is going to be negatively affected much more than a married couple (all else being equal).
What is so wrong with pointing that out?
It’s pretty much proven that kids with two supportive parents do better than those from only single parent families.
There is also a subtext (to me anyway) that some / many unwed mothers end up as unwed mothers not due to a conscious and positive decision to become a mother, and bring a child into the world knowing full well the resources required to raise it. Rather they become “unwed mothers” due to poor life choices, ignorance, bad decision making or any one of a number of other negative things you want to talk about.
To raise the issue of, and try to target children being born into poverty to mothers that don’t have the resources to raise them is not a bad thing. To do this by mentioning that people like Portman glorify and romaticise single motherhood is not neccessarily bad either - unless you are suggesting that Portman is not a role model?
The message to be taken from Portman is that “kids are great”. A not well educated teen, with poor decision making skills and not many options in life may well be influenced by this.
Of course, wed mothers can have the same thing happen - but who can deny that in the general sense it is much “better” and “easier” to raise a kid in a two parent household than a single parent household?
I am relatively educated, and not short of money, but I couldn’t imagine raising a child without my wife. I have no concept of how much more difficult it would be if I were to be alone.
She’s engaged to the father of her baby. I’m not sure I’d call that “single motherhood”.
:o whoops
Shows how much I know about Portman right?
But doesn’t negate the point that (I think) Bill was trying to make
Much as I hate his politics, I do think that in this instance he was right - babies are best born into a two parent family (however you want to define that relationship, which I don’t limit to only those married before the eyes of “god”).
Single motherhood is not something that should be celebrated…
It’s a good thing his right-wing buddies have successfully de-funded Planned Parenthood. We should see the incidents of single-motherhood plummet any day now.
I was not aware that Portman was “celebrating” single motherhood. Was there some kind of a party? Is she a spokesperson for the "Single Mothers are the Best Mothers Association?
or by “celebrating” it, do you mean actually appear in public?
Or perhaps appearing without a large red letter “A” emblazoned on her clothing? or a tattoo?
Are you upset that she is not sufficiently ashamed?
I believe that a single mother can get on the government dime more easily than a married one. I think it’s set up where the husband is assumed to contribute, even if he doesn’t.
I do know for sure that my sister, when trying to get adult Medicaid, was told repeatedly that, if she were to get pregnant, she could a ton of stuff from the government. And I mean by the officials she was talking to.
It’s comedy gold, but no one pointed out another thread in his comments that are highly dubious (and are usually a component of birtherism).
As for what he wanted Portman to do, it’s obvious: close her legs. Or be tarred and feathered after she failed to keep herself pure until marriage. The only good slut is a shamed one. Single motherhood is a big problem, but it’s too bad the only people working on the problem, if you even want to call what they’re doing working, are misogynistic knuckle dragging religious puritans.
You sure the “official” wasn’t just coming on to her? 
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
P.S. Huckabee must be thanking his lucky stars that the Portman comments have pushed the Birther comments out of the lead on the TV news this morning.
This is true.
But this really isn’t. (Well, not your specific story, but the sentiment it expresses.) I can’t find a good, general TANF chart at the moment, but (e.g.) in Texas the maximum monthly payment is $260 for a family of three with a single parent – which won’t stretch very far at all – and it isn’t that much more generous elsewhere (except in outliers such as, IIRC, Alaska). And the amount of time you’re permitted to be on it is highly restricted: federally there’s a five year lifetime limit, although States can optionally be a bit more generous. See here for the Texas example.
Medicaid and food stamps can be helpful, but WIC is nothing to write home about. In any event nobody gets to live high on the hog by having a child; any additional benefits probably won’t even (comfortably) cover the cost of the child.
So was that the idea? Say something outrageous about a Hollywood actress to divert attention from the outrageous thing you previously said about the president?
We-e-e-ll, I’m not sure he did it that way on purpose. I don’t follow TV news, so I get to miss a lot of pubbie dumbassery, and learn about it here, after the fact. Coulda been serendipitous for him. Still, didn’t somebody upthread mention low animal cunning? 
ETA: When I do see “news” on television, it’s on my lunch break at work, and only when the TV has been messed with so it won’t tune in Mr. Ed.
Since when is having a baby unmarried but in what seems to be a stable relationship amounts to being a “single mom”??? You can have unmarried couples and married (but separated) single moms.
More Christian marvoulousness, I guess.