mighty

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Mitt Romney is a Mormon Republician Canidate for President in 2008- I am going to vote for him, I am a huge supporter, Seeing he has made it as a Finanical Advisor, He will Donate his Full Salary to a Charity- No other canidate has ever done this (Ploy maybe....but Tax Relief Come on....)

What are your thughts on this Canadiate ?
And does he stand a chance with the Pot Luck race ???

tarmactrr2

He is a guy who flip flops on issues, and goes with whatever is popular at the moment. He will get plenty of votes from other Mormans, and that's probably about it.

mighty

Ooo-n I actually thought he would get quite a few-
Considering:

alot of people will not vote for:
Clinton cause she is a Female
Obama cause he has a smidge of African American in him
Richardson cause he has a Mexican decent.

im sure there are more canaidates- but considering who he is running against he has a upper hand due to Conflicting Issues...

ddoubleez

I would have a hard time believing that there are enough people that will vote in someone who has little grasp or belief of science, and therefore has little understanding of what to base his decisions on..

thecowboy

What does basing your decisions have to do with grasping or believing science?

ddoubleez

I was not trying to offend, but the disbeilef of the basics of biology and evolution are a good start... I don't find anything in science that supports the earth being created 10000 years ago or that Jesus lived in middle america.....

Funny:

h@#p://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/...tionist_tho.php



He has been coached out of this pr nightmare but most poeple can smell the bull........ Mormons are, to some people, participants in a cult and many christian groups have a hard time counting them in.

not my opinion, but it's just facts..........

mainstay

Does'nt matter what anyone thinks of "Mitt".....Fred Thompson is going to win, you can bank on it!!!! I've never been wrong when it comes to a National Election even before I was old enough to vote! (Except one time in 1976 & it was really close.) Mitt just looks to polished & has changed his opinions to many times. Republicans are very unforgiving when it comes to that!!!

ddoubleez

A lot if they conflict.... Reagan overturned many laws that were in place when he was elected under the assumption that there is pie in the sky, and now we have very real issues that are dealing with us, instread of us dealing with them....

thecowboy

OK, so you have a hard time voting or supporting someone who does not have a grasp on science. Good for you, but the last I checked, no scientists have been elected President.

Not trying to offend either, I just don't understand your argument.

Wabash9000

honestly watching videos of him and reading his website he looks to be full of shit. also he would extend the iraq war and posibly invade iran. that's not what we need right now. vote paul or all sorts of shit is going to get fucked up.

ddoubleez

I appreciate the questions and the patience.... Presidents or administrations choose who to consult... In the past, sometimes they have been scientists for some presidents others have consulted with pat Robertson (who recently called for an assignation publicly of a foreign leader and has called for entire towns to receive gods wrath for what he saw as immoral) and other religious figures.

Some if not many religious individuals have contributed wonderful things to our world, but they don't need government to do it. The role of government is not to enforce morality, it is to secure and maintain a quality of life for it's people. Therefore the government should consult studies, scientists and do research when making policies NOT consult the bible. Again we are to be kept safe not kept moral. This country was to be a place of freedom of religion for many reasons, one being that there would be no state sponsored religions. Morality should be between you and your maker not you and your government. There was the separation of church and state as well we have to consider as well.

Often times the church and state agree on what is best for the people, but it should only be enforced when it is protecting the safety of it's people.
If we looked at a common hot button issue and used abortion as an example, we can see where the using morality as a decision not studies can be very complicated. What should be the moral outcome for forcing a woman to have an unwanted child, if the child is only born to a majority of misery that leads to a life of crime.... When the previous scenario is true, it could be looked at as worse as killing a child, especially if more people are negatively effected by the child.... Can't make things too black and white...

I am sincerely looking forward to answering any other questions or defending my previous arguments.

PS One other angle to look at your question is why aren't we able to vote for scientists or teachers, people that have made their live out of trying to improve their world... Why in the hell are we only able to vote for millionares that owe all the people that got them there... Why are people that have hundreds for millions of dollars working a government job for 200k per year? Just a question.......

thecowboy

OK, first you stated that a person needs to be able to grasp science in order to base his decisions. Then you're talking about Reagan and his star wars policy. Now you're talking about morality in law. What exactly are we talking about here?

All I was and am saying is that there are way more than one reason to vote for someone. Just because a person doesn't have an understanding of science, doesn't mean people won't vote for him for other reasons. That is ALL I'm trying to say.

ddoubleez

QUOTE]Then you're talking about Reagan and his star wars policy. [/QUOTE]

No, and sorry for the confusion, I was talking about Regan's pie in the sky attitude and policies.... Pie in the Sky was referring to the attitude that God provides, Reagan was one of many that thought God would provide for his righteous people... So Reagan quickly overturned and rolled back policies that were going to keep us independent from the middle east, and preserve the longevity of our economy... Previous presidents funded research and crafted laws that were going to distill coal to liquid to run our cars, solar to run our houses and gas to heat them and help us cook... This was going to be done domestically, strengthen the economy and retaining our wealth as a nation and the middle east would not be the topic or area of unrest it is now.... We had laws that kept new companies and businesses from using natural gas to keep us out of the crisis we are in now h@#p://www.mnforsustain.org/energy_..._darley_j .htm .......


Another thing we have to remember to is (This should be a good example of getting advice from scholars and scientists is better than church....):




We are now dealing with a global epidemic because Reagan stayed silent and did nothing about aids because he thought God wanted homosexuals to die!



I am trying to explain that the role of government is not to enforce morality, it is to assure a quality of life and to maintain safety for it's people, and when we vote people in who we are not sure if they will adhere to this, we are being irresponsible as voters.

Many times morality will stifle freedom, you should be free to choose to do anything that does not harm another individual or effect their quality of life.... All other choices are between you and your god and should not be enforced by further loss of freedom...

Hope this clears a few thing up and I hope to hear from you more......

ddoubleez

A somewhat related thread:

http://forums.webrats.com/thread132544.html