| Author |
|
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12734
|
| Posted: 13 October 2008 at 5:11pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
So Palin's poor personal judgement should be overlooked because she's not
got as good a chance of being President?!?!
What a load of hooey.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Official JB Historian
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10927
|
| Posted: 13 October 2008 at 5:12pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
But doesn't that reflect poorly on McCain's judgement for picking her?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 13 October 2008 at 5:16pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Al, why do you always put words in people's mouths rather than just respond to what is actually said? Please point out, outside of your mind, where I said Palin's poor judgment should be overlooked? I never made that argument.
There has been poor judgment on both sides so I have to side with the side where the Presidential candidate aligns most closely what I want. It's just common sense.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew Hess
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9847
|
| Posted: 13 October 2008 at 5:24pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
No, Mike, it reflects excellently on McCain chosing Palin as a running mate: he needed to show the Fundamentalist Republicans that were soft on him that the Republican ticket was a good choice, and hiring Palin did just that.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Bruce Buchanan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 June 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4797
|
| Posted: 13 October 2008 at 5:30pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Being classy wasn't your first instinct, Scott?
*************
In all fairness, Al, he's not alone in that regard on this thread.
(BTW - not talking about you, Al)!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12734
|
| Posted: 13 October 2008 at 5:46pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I'm as guilty of it as anyone, Bruce, but thanks for the kind regards!
Scott Richards wrote:
Al, why do you always put words in people's
mouths rather than just respond to what is actually said? Please point
out, outside of your mind, where I said Palin's poor judgment should be
overlooked? I never made that argument. |
|
|
Ah, but I was responding to exactly what was said, Scott.
You made the comparison implicitly that her poor judgement should be
'overlooked' - i.e: not given the same scrutiny - when you said I agree
that Obama's beliefs may not match Wright's beliefs but I do believe that
it's an example of poor judgment on the part of someone who would have
a 100% chance of being President if elected vs. poor judgment on the part
of someone who has a 33% chance of being President if elected.
VS. being the operative term there. If you had just ended with a period
after "100% chance of being President" then I would never have been
able to comment on the amnesty you were ascribing to Palin on the basis
that she has only a third of chance of being so.
Edited to fix bad quote formatting.
Edited by Al Cook on 13 October 2008 at 5:47pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 13 October 2008 at 5:59pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
As I said, Al, you are putting words in my mouth. Show me again, where in there it says Palin's poor judgment should be overlooked. I didn't overlook poor judgement on either part. I have to vote for one party or the other so I will vote for the one that most closely corresponds to what I want, even if part of the ticket doesn't.
With Obama/Biden, there is a 100% chance that I will end up with a President I don't want.
With McCain/Palin, there is a 33% chance that I will end up with a President I don't want.
That's not giving anyone a pass. That's, as I said, common sense.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Marcio Ferreira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2514
|
| Posted: 13 October 2008 at 5:59pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
For everyone who is not familiar with it, The Art of Controversy of Arthur Schopenhauer, is a book worth reading. Specially if you are into debates.
There are some people that just get involved in debates to play games with other participants using the techniques very well explained by Schopenhauer in this book.
You can buy it at Amazon or download here.
Hope you all enjoy and don't use the techniques described by Schopenhauer.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 13 October 2008 at 6:01pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing where you learned how to do that, Marcio. That makes things a bit more clear.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Marcio Ferreira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2514
|
| Posted: 13 October 2008 at 6:06pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Actually I was pointing where you learned it Scott, but you already know that.
I am not the one playing games here, you are.
And I must admit you are a good game player, could be a great politician too, unfortunately I doubt you would be successful in the Democratic party.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 13 October 2008 at 6:10pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Sorry, Marcio, not my type of book. I'm into fiction. I find textbooks boring after having read too many of them in college. Obviously it's your cup of tea based on your knowledge of it. You are most definitely playing games but not as good at it as you think you are.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12734
|
| Posted: 13 October 2008 at 6:10pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Well Scott, if I'm putting words in your mouth then we need to be 100%
clear here, because it seems pretty obvious that you're more comfortable
with Palin's active participation in a church that believes that they can
'pray way gay' because she (in your estimation) only has a 33% chance of
being president than you are with Obama having attended a church with a controversial and outspoken pastor because he has a 100% chance of
being president.
In other words, it's not the associations and their perceived implications
that bother you, it's how likely they are to be elected.
That strikes me as odd.
However, as I said earlier, it also seemed quite clear that you weren't
really ascribing Palin's church's beliefs to her and were willing to agree
that there should be no way that Rev. Wright's viewpoints should be
ascribed to Obama.
That's likely the best way to leave this discussion then - at least that way
is clear and concise and can be understood by someone like me.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
