money at you in the form of govermate aid? But who supports abortion, gay marrage, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, ect..
2007-01-24 05:19:42 · 7 answers · asked by curious_inquisitor 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
whoops- I meant "government", I got in a hurry.
2007-01-24 05:21:22 · update #1
I want the best of both worlds. I don't exactly agree with abortion and human cloning, but at the same time I like the government aid. It has helped many and our country and would help many more if we could get the people that don't really need it off of it and get the money to the right people.
2007-01-24 05:49:55 · answer #1 · answered by premed student 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"stronger moral issues" is now a dead issue (IE. the scandals of the hypocrites that got busted last November especially that Christian Evangelist!!!).
It was nice to see people FINALLY seeing through the veil of hypocrisy this last election.
As for the other issues you mention. What is the problem?
If you don't like abortion, then don't get one.
Who gets hurt over gay marriage?
Stem Cell research? Since Bush has been President this country has made abysmal progress in science and medicine compared to the rest of the world. If Christians would quit trying to re-write the truth behind stem cell research then we wouldn't have a problem.
Cloning? So what.
What good have the Republican ruled White House Bible-waving Moral issues done in the past 7 years?
Health care has gone through the roof.
The "caring" President turns his back on Hurricane Katrina victims.
Starting a war over the President's Christian duty to fight non-Christians.
Science/Medicine has been regressed to Inquisition methods.
"intelligent design" is supported by the President and making our children dumber for it.
Moral issues are not going to keep this country secure, safe, or strong. It is an emotional method used to gets votes from the elderly and Christians.
2007-01-24 14:13:13 · answer #2 · answered by AWeirdly 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any candidate can speak a good moral message but it is back ground that speaks loudest. If you relate moral with religion; that is a no-no. I just want to know that the future President has some type of Christian religion. That's it.
If a candidate throws money at things that you personally don't believe in, then don't vote for that person. There are some who happen to believe that some of the things you listed are important issues that should be considered for funding. I don't know of any candidate that supports all of your listings. I also don't know of any candidate that openly declares their very own religion. Some just refer to the fact that they have a religion. President John Kennedy had to address his religion because people were so against a Catholic President, he is the only one that has had to defend his religion, that I know about. Your question is not fooling anyone.
2007-01-24 15:29:14 · answer #3 · answered by geegee 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would NEVER vote for a candidate who threw money at anyone in the form of 'government aid'...it goes against my principles. However, somehow they still keep getting elected. I'd hands-down, 100% always pick the morally upright one.
2007-01-24 13:50:55 · answer #4 · answered by sillycanuckpei 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Moral issues of course.
It is immoral to start wars against countries that did not attack us.
It is immoral to block life-saving research on stem cells from zygotes that would be destroyed anyway.
It is immoral to force me, the taxpayer, to fund corrupt mega-churches whose bigoted messages I resent, and call them "faith-based initiatives".
It is immoral to continue to allow privatization of health care coverage, while 47 million people can't afford to get sick, and 53% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills -- more than half of those bankrupted families had private insurance and still couldn't pay... all because we are the last developed nation to not cover everyone for medical care.
It is immoral to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term when the reasoning behind her decision is unknown to you, especially if it relates to her health or a dangerous home situation.
It is immoral to deny women meaningful education and access to reproductive controls because your brand of religion considers women to be worth less than dirt. Especially when this would prevent most abortions in the first place.
It is immoral to apply your standards of what constitutes a proper family onto everyone else, and force the rest of the world to homogenize to your narrow views.
It is immoral to allow the most affluent persons who don't contribute to society to pay a maximum of 15% taxes on their investment and dividend income, while people who actually work for a living pay up to 35%.
It is immoral to give huge subsidies to record-breaking profiteers, while deriding small families who need a few dollars to feed their children or send them to college so that they can contribute to society.
It is immoral to declare that you owe nothing to your fellow man, that you should be free from taxation or obligation to the American culture whose bosom you have never weaned yourself from, in the form of free roads, courts, laws, police, safety regulations, and other infrastructure that allowed you to grow and prosper in safety in the first place.
2007-01-24 14:32:23 · answer #5 · answered by Brandon F 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
funny, your second candidate seems to me to be stronger on moral issues.
but it is just a matter of opinion.
2007-01-24 13:53:54 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. O 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
neither one.
2007-01-24 15:48:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋