they think they are so moral, yet they are the ones lying and giving BS reasons to go to war, and then now Foley is trying to have sex with his intern, look at da hipocrisy of ur "morality".
2006-10-09 09:58:36 · 17 answers · asked by balanced112 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
yes i mispelled republicans, good thing too, republicans have been twisted and corrupted, so its only fair i mispell the name
2006-10-09 10:01:06 · update #1
morality is actually not a very good "campaign" basis, so to speak. everyone has different morals, and because of that it causes conflict. if we were to vote on morality, we'd have terrorists running the nation. morality is too broad a spectrum to base an honest vote on. life, liberty, and happiness is solid and to the point. who doesn't want that? our nation is corrupt. and it will only get worse, it's sad
ps - after going back and reading some other answers to the question, the dumb/*** 3 down should have been an abortion. never bring god into politics. you're just asking to be shot. morality has nothing to do with god. morality is what people believe in and feel is right. even if in all reality it isn't. never cross religion and politics. they are already the 2 most controversial topics out there. there is no need to combine them unless you have intentions on starting a riot...
2006-10-09 10:04:55 · answer #1 · answered by Rockstar Jersey 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
hey imbalanced, the phrasing of ur question shows a certain slant.To answer ur question tho, republicans try to pass laws that are morally based, which is the basis of all law!...get it?!! Who would want a law passed that was immorally based? Oh yeah, maybe democrats would. As for Foley, he is a rat, and a republican. But the rat resigned right away, unlike dem rep Studds, who actually HAD sex with his intern, or dem rep Frank, who had a homosexual prostitution ring operating out of his congressional washington residence. You will lose arguing which party has the market cornered on immorality......its the dems!
2006-10-09 10:16:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They have different views than liberals do about freedom. They consider laws to be the closest thing that society can provide as a code of morals. Neither side defines freedom the same. The Republicans believe that morals are not relative. Liberal tend to be relativists. I tend to agree that morals are not relative.
2006-10-09 10:05:59 · answer #3 · answered by C J 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
well I'm republican and the morals have to do with some of my decisions but not all of them,and though I dont condone Foley,he wasnt in the oval office when we all found out,and P.S.He was pursuing happiness(his at least) and like other famous people has to pay a consequence,though I vote G.O.P. ,I do vote who or whom is gonna do the job best,after all I gotta live in the mess too,and so far I'm not impressed with your side..thats all..you never know and I dont impose my beliefs on others,they agree or dis agree
2006-10-09 10:17:18 · answer #4 · answered by stygianwolfe 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
LMAO you are Lib! And that in itself is funny. All that Libs and Democrats know how to do is point the finger. God forbid they ever do anything wrong ( CLINTON!!! ). You all are just Puppets, that repeat what your Leaders ( who have brainwashed you ) tell you. See that is why in a time of war, democrats and liberals have never been elected as President, and never will. God will not allow them to. They would destroy the World. Give more Liberty to Arabs and others who will totally take advantage of us. GO REPUBLICANS, 4 MORE YEARS BABY, YOU CAN COUNT ON THAT!!!!!
2006-10-09 10:05:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because control and management is the conservative philosophy. The philosophy works well in areas where a single direction achieves the goal, like business, the economy, and the military. When applied to society, however, it becomes oppression. In foreign policy, it's a disaster.
2006-10-09 10:05:34 · answer #6 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
well, isnt that nice and liberal of you to lump in all republicans with mark foley.
Don't forget about these reasons we went to war:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
2006-10-09 10:05:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
They don't actually push morality, it's more of a talking point. It's mostly to keep the evangelical christians voting for them, or else they'd never get enough votes.
2006-10-09 10:05:18 · answer #8 · answered by notme 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
OMG. a WONDERFUL question posed in a wonderful way. MAN you hit the nail on the head. They have no morality. ANYTHING they are preaching, you can rest assured they are DOING the opposite. it's a way of doing one thing and LOOKING LIKE you are NOT doing it at the same time.
2006-10-09 10:03:57 · answer #9 · answered by politicallypuzzeled 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hey, just pray for them. It's got to be very humiliating to be at their level of intelligence and have George W. bush as their leader.
2006-10-09 10:08:27 · answer #10 · answered by Pop D 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋