277
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + +
Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore? (view source)
Revision as of 14:20, September 8, 2008
, 14:20, September 8, 2008→RELEVANCY
:Correct, everything is relevant, but that does not answer the question as to what /ought/ be relevant. I think military service certainly helps, but it's not the end all be all that McCain wants it to be. Soldiers are people first, and people are fallible; there are bad soldiers just as there are bad people and pointing that out (such as when Kerry went before Congress) isn't a bad thing at all. The point? Serving your country doesn't make you better or worse than anyone else, it just adds variety. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 09:39, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:Correct, everything is relevant, but that does not answer the question as to what /ought/ be relevant. I think military service certainly helps, but it's not the end all be all that McCain wants it to be. Soldiers are people first, and people are fallible; there are bad soldiers just as there are bad people and pointing that out (such as when Kerry went before Congress) isn't a bad thing at all. The point? Serving your country doesn't make you better or worse than anyone else, it just adds variety. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 09:39, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::So then the addition of military service record as variety in an election is relevant. But then you say it is irrelevant in that it doesn't make you a better or worse candidate. So which one is relevant or irrelevant then?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)