Well, we're really near the end of year 2007 and near the fears competitions of the presidential elections.i guess whoever wins this elections tells what America is going to be in the next three years. since all of them have many different moral standrads it will either add to the moral decline of America or lift it up slightly.what do u think?
I agree with Don. As far as electable candidates, there isn't really one who catches my eye. As long as whoever will be President puts national security as a top priority. Hopefully Madame President won't cut the CIA and military like her husband did.
The problem that I see is within the definition of “morals”. One would have to define just what their interpretation of it is, before any particular candidate could be assigned as the best fit to that conclusion. It is already obvious to me, that based on comments in this thread, it would be highly likely that several of us would have different interpretations, and therefore personal choices for best candidate.Now if you use the partisan definition of "moral majority", I would think you end up with exactly zero candidates, of the top 3 or 4 from either party. Just ask the RR. They are looking at running an independent.
Good choice. That may actually be tied for first with the GWOT, only because the economic consequences from the religion of AGW will harm everyone globally. It already has started.