Headbanging in Kabul »« A Gaggle of Wingnuts

Huckabee: Boycotts are Un-American!

The New York Times has an article about the recent controversy over an online marketing company that allows people to donate money to anti-gay Christian groups, which has sparked protests. This is included:

“This is economic terrorism,” said Mike Huckabee, the former pastor, governor and presidential contender, who is a paid CGBG consultant. “To try to destroy a business because you don’t like some of the customers is, to me, unbelievably un-American,” he said in an interview.

So I’m sure Huckabee will be condemning all those Christian groups who have called on boycotts of Ford, Home Depot and virtually every other company that has done anything at all to promote equality. Right, Mike? Right? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Comments

  1. says

    Funny how lots of wingnuts praise capitalism up until someone outside their tribe decides to use capitalism to “vote with their dollars” and protest something. Then all of a sudden, they’re staunch Communists declaring that we’re subversive and that we must buy from the same factory as everyone else.

  2. VeritasKnight says

    It is the exact opposite as Huckabee has said: it is totally American to vote with your wallet. In fact, it’s pretty much the only way Average Joe can affect the bigger corporations, other than voting for the right people to change regulations, etc.

    Do what we do until you do it against us, he might as well say.

  3. Michael Heath says

    And Mr. Huckabee’s supposed to be the reasonable one; kinda like Rick Warren supposedly represents reasonable evangelical preachers.

    OT – Last weekend I watched a very long, frequently frustrating, though interesting 2009 debate between Christoper Hitchens and Biola University’s William Lane Craig. I’ve never found verbal debates like this a very productive use of time given the quality of the debate hinges more on the quality of the speaker rather than the quality of the position defended. So I’m a relative newbie to such events where my newness to such events is probably what led to it being interesting for me.

    I also shy away because I think Mr. Hitchens is far too uninformed regarding science to defend against fundamentalist, biblically inerrantist apologists. I like him as an essayists and am supportive of his doing such events, but also find him to be too ill-informed to make the devastating case available. That proved very true in this debate. However Mr. Craig, who’d I’d heard was the best and brightest defender of biblical inerrancy when it comes to science falsifying many of its claims, was articulate but horrible in an incredibly sophomoric manner. He couldn’t pass an entry level critical thinking class if his life depended on it; and he’s a prof teaching college students? Some college.

    Is there even one person on the fundamentalist side that can honestly and cogently defend biblical claims vs. what science understands? One? I can’t imagine how one could make the arguments necessary to meet my standard; but that doesn’t mean such arguments don’t exist. So has anyone out there heard anyone would can make an honest well-framed case or do they all make such absurd arguments?

  4. Scott F says

    Perhaps Mr. Huckabee doesn’t recognize that this is what the very first Tea Partiers did. In fact, the first Tea Partiers didn’t just boycott British tea, they actively destroyed the product.

  5. advisermoppet says

    Don’t forget the christian groups that boycotted stores that wouldn’t say merry christmas.

  6. slc1 says

    Re Michael Heath @ #3

    Rather difficult for a defender of bible inerrancy to be a critical thinker.

  7. Scott Hanley says

    Scott F. beat me to it in mentioning that the Boston Tea Party was an act of economic terrorism — in fact, it was intended to enforce the tea boycott on everyone, willing or unwilling.

    So I’ll just add that non-importation of British goods was colonial resistance policy even before the war broke out. They hoped to pressure British merchants into opposing their government’s policies. Also, the Jefferson administration responded to British trade restrictions and kidnapping of American sailors by placing an embargo on trade with Great Britain (which hurt American merchants even more than English merchants – it was very unpopular in the US). If you take the founding generation your template for “American,” then it’s hard to come up with a more American policy.

  8. MollyNYC says

    Y’know, anyone who’s even talking about running for office in the United States should probably have at least a passing acquaintance with the US Constitution.

    So why–especially when the subjects of boycotts, unionization and demonstrations come up–do so many Republicans have so much trouble with the concept of “freedom of assembly”?

  9. fifthdentist says

    @MollyNYC

    The Constitution, to conservatives, is like their Bible; they cherry pick, quote mine and selectively pick fragments that appear to agree with them. When it clearly doesn’t, they claim that the portion in question is being interpreted incorrectly. That is, when they don’t outright lie or deny the existence of the offending material.

  10. imthegenieicandoanything says

    How I wish Huckerberry was simply being a hypocrite!

    He isn’t. Like all of the current disease that is the “Republican” Party, they can do exactly what they like with anything they want (a habit, no doubt, developed in Bible class where whatever God says can be sorted through and reinterpreted to mean whatever is to your current advantage).

    He’s a lying creep and someone very comfortable with evil-doers, so long as they wear ‘Mer’kin flag lapel pins, have a Bible on their desks, and are very, very, very rich. It’d be interesting to know if there is even one of ten “commandments” he hasn’t willingly broken.

    What awful, awful people!

  11. unbound says

    That’s okay. These are the same idiots that think monopolistic corporations are somehow operating in competitive landscapes.

    The terms free markets, competition, and American are just magic words with no real connection to reality for these people. Like prayer, as long as people think using the magic words will make a difference in their lives, the words will be abused over and over again.

  12. 386sx says

    FYI, he is a consultant for the Charity Giveback Group.

    True but he’s completely unbiased. He’s a big fuzzy teddy bear! We call him uncle Hucky-boo and we don’t even know him. That’s how nice a guy he is. They don’t get more honester than the Huckle-bopster.

  13. says

    On a related note, the Southern Baptists are looking for a new name. One of my suggestions?

    “Un-American Baptists: Yeah, We’re the Ones that Boycotted Disney and Now Huckabee thinks We’re Un-American”

    Fitting.

  14. 386sx says

    Beyond condemning the advocates’ efforts as an infringement on consumer freedom, Mr. Huckabee said it was offensive to apply the “hate group” label to organizations that are legal, peaceful and promote biblical values.

    Condemning advocates’ efforts is un-American, and so is promoting biblical values. And so is being legal and peaceful. I call on Mr. Huckabee to rescind his American citizenship.

  15. stefanpreiml says

    I wonder what Huckabee thinks about the measures taken by christians to combat “the war on christmas”. Boycotting retailers who greet with “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” and the like.

  16. Ichthyic says

    Mr. Huckabee’s supposed to be the reasonable one

    you know what’s really funny?

    In the last election, he was considered to represent the religious extreme position, based on his comments about amending the constitution, among other things.

    NOW he’s the “reasonable one”??

    the Overton Window is about to slide off the edge and break.

  17. raven says

    Mr. Huckabee said it was offensive to apply the “hate group” label to organizations that are legal, peaceful and promote biblical values.

    Offensive is a matter of personal opinion.

    It is simply a fact that those so called “biblical values” are nothing but hate and bigotry. And which “biblical values” is Huckabee referring to?

    The ones about how you can sell your kids as sex slaves for a few bucks. Stoning disobedient kids, false prophets, nonvirgin brides, and adulterers to death? Polygamy? Slavery? Rule by kings and dictators?

    Most values found in the bible are just illegal these days. We as a society have moved on.

  18. raven says

    On a related note, the Southern Baptists are looking for a new name. One of my suggestions?

    I just call them “fundie xian death cult morons”. Why not, it is true.

    Here on the west coast, the Southern Baptists exist but they aren’t real common. They also try to hide the “Southern” part of their name. Southern especially in a church name isn’t real popular.

    The church down the road from me calls itself a “Community” church. If you do a lot of digging, it turns out they are actually affiliated with…the SBC.

  19. fifthdentist says

    “On a related note, the Southern Baptists are looking for a new name.”

    Inbred Pig-fucking Morons?* (The IPFM).

    * I was terrorized by the SOBs (Southern Baptists) for the first 15 years of my life. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the SOBs.

  20. michaelcrichton says

    TO be fair to Schmuckabee, there _is_ a difference between boycotting a company for their own actions, and boycotting them for the actions of their customers which they facilitate. For example, boycotting a print-shop that displays KKK signs in their windows, vs. boycotting a shop for printing up those signs for someone else. Personally, I think both boycotts would be justified, but it’s possible to support the first and condemn the second without being a hypocrite. I would be surprised uf this was actually his thought process, but for some reason I feel compelled to give him the benefit of the doubt just this once.

    … Ah, who am I kidding?

  21. Stardrake says

    For the Southern Baptists, why don’t they just use Original Intent®?

    Call themselves the Slaver Baptists.

    It’s why they broke away in the first place, and their attitude towards women shows that the spirit hasn’t weakened…

    (Not to mention they’d have the blacks back as slaves in a heartbeat if they could figure out how!)

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply