100
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: + +
Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore? (view source)
Revision as of 14:25, September 8, 2008
, 14:25, September 8, 2008→RELEVANCY
::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 it to be, relevant or irrelevant?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:20, 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 it to be, relevant or irrelevant?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:20, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Do you not read? Indeed, EVERYTHING is relevant; that's the way things are, but here's the kicker, that says nothing of what /ought/ be relevant. Palin's daughter, for example, was highly relevant in the days after the story broke about her being pregnant, but it shouldn't have ever been broken in the first place: Bristol isn't going to be the vice president, and what happened to McCain in Vietnam doesn't suddenly make him a superior leader because Obama /hasn't/ served in the military. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 10:25, 8 September 2008 (EDT)