Senator McCain did not put country first when he selected his running mate

Quote from Thunderdog:

McCain picked a greenhorn who could conceivably find herself at the helm during his administration if McCain wins. That is downright irresponsible and shows a disregard for what is better for the country. He just wanted the votes, come what may. On the other hand, Obama could probably have slam dunked it with Clinton as his running mate but, what some reason, probably thought the dynamic wasn't right. He went with Biden, who is far more seasoned and a responsible choice. Therefore, unlike McCain, Obama evidently did not sell out for votes.
More...

By the same logic, Obama should have decided not to run.
Besides, you know absolutely nothing about him.
 
Obviously,
both Obama and McCain chose vice-president candidates from mainly populist reasons.

Reasonably, one can argue that Obama may have considered practical reasons and administrative strengths to his candidacy,
while McCain obviously considered mainly the emotional issues and especially concern for conservative values.


I think this is the bare essence of the choice for both of them.
 
Quote from Cesko:

By the same logic, Obama should have decided not to run.
Besides, you know absolutely nothing about him.
More...
Nice try. Here's what I know. Many key democrats have wholeheartledly endorsed Obama AFTER they got to know him and where he stands. The Republicans were sandbagged by McCain with Palin and scurried to circle their wagons. They were cheering BEFORE they knew anything of consequence about her. Which endorsement strikes you as the more genuine?
 
Quote from Gringinho:

...Reasonably, one can argue that Obama may have considered practical reasons and administrative strengths to his candidacy,
while McCain obviously considered mainly the emotional issues and especially concern for conservative values...
More...
...with apparent disregard for issues of potential discontinuity in the running of the country.
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

...with apparent disregard for issues of potential discontinuity in the running of the country.
More...

Whose country you talking about Tdawg?
Ours ... or yours.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Whose country you talking about Tdawg?
Ours ... or yours.
More...
Yours, which borders ours and accounts for almost 90% of our exports. Yeah, it's kinda important to us, too, that you guys fare well.
 
Quote from Gringinho:

...Well, it is not about morals - which are derived from religion, poses authoritative control over your actions and demands obedience. It is well known that the world and reality is not bivalent - simply "black and white", "true or false" like in simplistic propositional logic which is employed by e.g Abrahamic religion - polarizing everything into "good or evil"...[/url]
More...
Couldn't disagree with you more - either on the grounds of science and mathematical logic or according to my religion, Christianity. From a human perspective, something is either true or false, equal or not equal, good or evil (according to one's definition of good), etc etc. This duality is then taken over by true monotheistic religion, but let's not go there now.

Yes, we, being human, can consider intermediate states, like "I don't know" or "almost equal" or "not too bad" but these are constructs of indecision, lack of information, or opportunity, inferior to the truth to which they ultimately yield.

Btw, my religion (and all of the great ones, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) is not authoritative or controlling - that's a total misunderstanding of what the great religions of the world stand for. They aspire to be maps to personal fulfilment, that's all. If someone on the road tells you that the next gas station is 10 miles away, is he controlling you or is he trying to help you with the truth as he knows it?
 
Yannis,

I won't push you on what you mean about "truth", since the last thread on that got deleted even here - which is pretty rare for this forum...
:D

However,
on bivalence - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

And then on the gas-station example ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism#Criticisms_of_consequentialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(social_sciences)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticism_and_defense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox


I really couldn't say as to the motives of the stranger... could you? (Yannis, please don't chicken out of answering this.)
:)
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top