I'll take a bit of an issue with that. It works when the role is strictly limited. However, President is a very widely defined role, to start with, and often the President is involved in things that go well beyond even that wide definition. In that case, character does matter, as much if not more than competence. Indeed, with a role like that, often excellence is more a matter of knowing what you don't know, being enough of a leader to have good people (who do know) follow you and offer you their advice and counsel, and having the wisdom to evaluate this input from others and project a forceful and convincing argument in support of the best answer. These are all, in good part, elements of character, with very little in terms of task-oriented competence involved.
Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant beauty contest, and was second runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant.
Wrong. Rather, picking the best team; the best option of those available. Your perspective is like picking an long-term investment based on how well it is likely to do this year, ignoring the fact that some other investment will perform better over the long-term.
Sorry, but that's a myopic view. This is very basic probability and statistics. Have you ever been tested using a comparative utility tool? With respect, I suspect your answers to that tool would belie what you're trying to make people think you believe. No one is so hard-and-fast ignorant of the effect of probabilities on eventualities.
No I am not wrong, you stated that if you were simply basing your choice on who is going to be president, you would have chosen McCain. Those were your words, not mine.
You can wonder all you want, but that is exactly how I have voted since I was first allowed to vote, and will continue to vote forever more. In 2000 the only one of the 4 on either ticket that I particularly liked was Lieberman, however, he was the 2nd banana, I had to vote for Bush because I didn't want Gore. Based on the way you would advocate doing it, I would have voted for Gore, even though I didn't want him to be president because I liked Lieberman and who knows, Gore might have died and then the guy I liked the best would get the job.I do have to wonder about all the McCain supporters who work so hard to try to discount the fact that Palin is on the ticket: "Yes we're best -- ignore Palin, she doesn't matter."
Yes you are.
No, those weren't my words. My words are in my message, presented in the context that I chose to put them in, and clarified as I chose to clarify them.
No, it is like buying Stock A, which will make $6M profit per year, practically guaranteed for 8 years, with practically no chance of suddenly going bankrupt, instead of buying Stock B, which will make $9M profit per year, but only as long as the company stays in business, but then has a 30% chance of suddenly going bankrupt sometime in that 8 year period.
Ignoring a 30% probability is very naive. And pretty darned self-serving, given that you're telling me to ignore the 30% probability, in support of the idea of voting for the candidate you value more highly. Very self-serving.
I'm telling you that you're wrong about my thoughts, as you have been before, and will likely be again, over and over and over.
It's not arrogance, it is simple reading skills, I learned them by the 3rd grade. As quoted above, you stated, if it was just McCain vs Obama, you would have picked McCain. Do you now wish to retract your statement?Yes you are.
No, those weren't my words. My words are in my message, presented in the context that I chose to put them in, and clarified as I chose to clarify them.
Don't you dare try to tell me what I meant. That's just out-of-line arrogance.
I don't have the time or inclination to go find anything you have previously wrote, it simply isn't that important to me. If that's the way you want to look at it, then fine, I have a different perspecitve.
Ignoring a 100% probablity is even more naive. And for the record, I want and expect for you to vote for the candidate you wish to vote for, I am not attempting to change your mind or influence your decision. You stated your opinion, and I stated mine. Yours is right for you, and mine is right for me. Isn't it a great country we live in that we can think this way and say what we think?Ignoring a 30% probability is very naive. And pretty darned self-serving, given that you're telling me to ignore the 30% probability, in support of the idea of voting for the candidate you value more highly. Very self-serving.
Or lack thereof, actually. You even quoted my message and still misunderstood what I wrote. I believe you're too smart to be doing so through incompetence or negligence, but just in case: The part you seem to be missing is right here:
I'll await your apology, but I know, from past experience with you, that none is forthcoming.
There is no 100% probability with regard to McCain. It's a 70% probability. That's it. And if you don't care to go find the other discussion where that was explained, that's your loss. Accept it and move on as you wish.
While I doubt that Sarah Palin would go after free speech, I do have serious and legitimate concerns about what other freedoms she will work to compromise ... with 30% probability.
Bull. You'll choose to see things through your twisted lens, no matter how precisely I explain things. I deliberately included the phrase "i.e., McCain never selected a religious zealot as his VP" because of people like you, who choose to distort and twist things instead of understanding them as written as a normal person would. I didn't include that as an afterthought. I included it for preciseness, so people wouldn't try to interpret the sentence the way you deliberately choose to.
And now it is perfectly clear that I didn't, as you yourself showed when you finally quoted me. But will you acknowledge your error? Will you apologize? Of course not. That's just not you.
It isn't a debate because he's trying to tell me what I said.
