Huckabee is DARING Barack Obama or any DEM to a racial pissing match in South Carolina. If this was poker, Huck is going 'all in' and playing his race card. But Obama won't take the bait. He knows that a racial debate would go nowhere but down into the pitts and degrade his message of hope.

There are other important questions that the networks won't ask, such as:

To Huckabee and Romney: If you believe in the Bible, do you also believe in the book of Revealation's prophesy of armegeddon and do you believe world war is inevitable? I don't want the next commander in chief believing in Armegeddon and holding the nuclear trigger.

To Romney: Do you revere Joseph Smith as a prophet given his conviction as a con man in NY?

Maybe MSNBC can explain why Joe Scarborough can get away with connecting the words "Obama" and "drugs" repeatedly - over 30 times (at least) in just one of his morning shows.

Eg: I can't believe Barack is a drug freak.", or "the rumor that Obama is a drug dealer is false" and over and over and over, ad naseuem.

A Clinton staffer tried the same thing with Chris Matthews on Hardball and was immediately shot down but Scarborough gets away with it daily. I can only conclude that MSMBC condones Scarborough's indirect racism.

The networks won't ask Hillary about her infamous broken promise to find 200,000 jobs for upstate New Yorkers. When Tim Russert won't ask her that question on Meet the Press, you know the question is way too hot to handle. The Clinton's don't want Hillary's record in NY known.

Nor will the networks tell us why they exclude Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich from debates when they are polling better than people like Rudy.

The networks are pulling out all the stops trying to influence this election. It's no co-incidence that Jack Welch, former GE grand poobah is bad mouthing Hillary on MSNBC.

We expect unethical behavior from FOX News, but not from NBC et.al.

The Book of Revelations is not about the future, and those who actually understand Christianity know this.

However, your ignorance proves that you lack any clue, and you should probably be locked in a mental asylum before you hurt people with your lunacy.

"The Book of Revelations is not about the future, and those who actually understand Christianity know this."

WTF does this mean? What is the book of Revelations "about"?

Doesn't it feature the return of Christ on a cloud etc.? When did this happen? Or is it all an allegory-for what? I ask this sincerely as you are clearly someone who "understands" Christianity.

"WTF does this mean? What is the book of Revelations "about"?"

The Book of Revelation is a coded work in the same way as the Book of Daniel, which was written as a book of hope telling the people that their imprisonment under another power (Rome, in this case) would come to an end soon.

That is it.

"The Book of Revelation is a coded work in the same way as the Book of Daniel, which was written as a book of hope telling the people that their imprisonment under another power (Rome, in this case) would come to an end soon.

That is it."

You mean come to an end with the destruction of the temple and the diaspora? Or are we only talking about the tiny Christian cult who would suffer further centuries of persecution ? Or is it a veiled reference to present day Christians who will eventually be free of the liberal, elitist cabal which holds them in check and stops them from indulging in their God given right to wave confederate flags, keep slaves, stone adulterers etc. You fuckin nut.

Silly me, I thought 'prophesies' were predicting future events.

Wheeew! For a moment there I thought you were condemning my immortal soul to hell. Sorry for the interruption, I know you must be busier than a one-armed paper hanger, seeking out evil-doers like me expressing a differing opinion on SLATE and around the universe.

Say, as long as I got you online, who finally won that big war, that armegeddon dust-up? Somehow I missed it. Did it make the papers?

San, I am not looking to further incite you here, as i respect your point of view. I just have a question that interests me as a student of the Bible trying to make sense of it in the world.

If you accept that the Revelation is allegorical, then what do you say to people who also read Genesis in the same way, as a compression of natural history and a summary of the spirit of Creation and not as a verbatim account of how God made the universe?

It seems to me impossible to believe literally in the Creation, but not in the Endgame. I accept, and actually second, your informed reading of the Revelation. If you do support reading and teaching the "spirit" of the Bible, however, do you not then take up the responsibility to defend it from those people like Huckabee who dispense with the Spirit in favor of manipulating the words of Scripture to make them sound narrow and full of hate?

If you do read the Bible more figuratively, are you not obligated to reject literalist wordmongers?

It seems to me that people choose to read the Bible only literally because it takes the guesswork out of life, because following rules and preaching simple stories is easier than accepting the challenges inherent in the spirit of Christ's message, no?

"Silly me, I thought 'prophesies' were predicting future events."

Its not a prophesies.

"If you accept that the Revelation is allegorical, then what do you say to people who also read Genesis in the same way, as a compression of natural history and a summary of the spirit of Creation and not as a verbatim account of how God made the universe?"

The first book of Genesis is allegorical.

Adam means man.

There are two different creation stories.

The problem with Protestantism is that it believed that people were capable of understanding words. Obviously, they weren't.

Ok. Do you stand by Huckabee then, or no?

I understand you side with him on his historical perspective on American states'-rights issues. (It's strange that the Republican Party looks more like it did in 1800 than in 1866. Perhaps it's time to start referring to it as the party of Jefferson again, and acknowledge its anti-Federalist leanings. Because it seems now that the Lincoln era was an anomaly in its history, no?) But what about the larger question--and the question that will touch on more subjects in his potential Presidency than those concerning states' right--do you reject his endorsement of literalist SOUTHERN Baptist morality?

San:

The Book of Revelations is not about the future, and those who actually understand Christianity know this.

However, your ignorance proves that you lack any clue, and you should probably be locked in a mental asylum before you hurt people with your lunacy.

I tend to agree, but what the Book of Revelations is or is not about is not the point of the question -- the point is what the candidate BELIEVES in that regard -- there certainly is a sizable body of evangelical protestants who DO think that Armageddon is just around the corner.

"there certainly is a sizable body of evangelical protestants who DO think that Armageddon is just around the corner."

And I am only saying that anyone believing it is wrong and/or illiterate.

"I understand you side with him on his historical perspective on American states'-rights issues."

Not at all.

I am an 18th century scholar, and Politics of the 18th and early 19th century are important to my field. I tend to side with Madison over Jefferson.

I didn't support the South for the same reason why I don't support the Articles of Confederation - they don't work. However, the South had a legitimate complaint against the monopolies of the North created by tarrifs.

San:

And I am only saying that anyone believing it is wrong and/or illiterate.

Unfortunately, that covers quite a few people LOL

Thomas - 60% of people in DC were supposedly illiterate.

Yes, illiteracy and idiocy covers the vast majority of people.

Remember, 100 IQ is the average. There are many people without it.