Originally posted by Israfil

Patty you are showing apologist attitudes that I shared back in 2003 on religions. There is no such thing as equal treatment. If you believe there is then (for example) why don't girls share the same locker room with boys? We as people of society have been trained to think in terms of what is ethically acceptable or not. Patty you showed it by saying you wouldn't vote for a person that is pro-abortion. Either way the person who will be elected will not exact policies that are "equal" to all because the title of the president is to be a leader in the best interest of the people. The people don't always agree as you know this.

Patty you said:

"The President has to be one of very high morals, extremely intelligent....as well as possessing common sense, high ethical standards, fairness towards everyone..........AND SOMEONE WITH A PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD.  The world is getting smaller and smaller, and we need, rather we MUST have a president who will endeavor to treat each county with equal respect and value.  Nothing less with do."

This is a good comment but its still an idealist way of the descriptive way of thinking. You are saying the the president "ought" to be moral and intelligent. But who decides morality? Among conservatives an atheist, pro-abortion president would be consider immoral and unethical for his personal beliefs but how do we know that such a person would not be a great leader. In my belief an atheist president would definitely fulfill the part of the consitution of secularism (Separation of Church and State).

Also we cannot always treat each country equally especially if there are certain entities in specific countries that have sub-groups that wish to do us harm. So should an ideal president deal with a Hamas government the same way he/she does with a Norwegian government? The tricky issue with political ethics is that the result exposes our extreme ideals and values. If Barack Obama is our future president first I'd like to acknowledge this moment and say this man made history in being the first minority (and Black man) as president. Second, I hope he can enforce fair policies. By fairness I mean what is due by other entities who deserve it.

I hope the president focuses on domestic issue. At this point my attitude is "let the world destroy itself." Terrorism is more prevelant here in the streets than in Afghanistan. I agree Patty that this president should be intelligent but not emphasizing academia since being academic does not make one automatically intelligent. Rather, a sense of understanding of how the world is and how to be versatile. How to adapt to bad situations and able to make conclusions. I'm tired of religious presidents. I'm tired of religions in politics period. We see even in Islamic countries that religion within politics fail. Those types of governments fail. Their economy fails.

A change in governmental policies starts now and hopefully these prospects have what it takes.

You are saying the the president "ought" to be moral and intelligent. But who decides morality? Among conservatives an atheist, pro-abortion president would be consider immoral and unethical for his personal beliefs but how do we know that such a person would not be a great leader. In my belief an atheist president would definitely fulfill the part of the consitution of secularism (Separation of Church and State).

Originally posted by Cassandra

Bring back Al Gore:  The Man Who Would (have) Be (en) President.  The real issue is environmental:   Global Warming is dominating the newspapers.  It is this which we should be concerning ourselves with before it is too late.

Cassie