Who will be Obama’s VP?

8/21/2008:

Fox News reported today that Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama has “already picked” his running-mate for Vice President, but wouldn’t say who.

Who do you think it’ll be? Who is the best choice? Who would be the worst?

{democracy:163}

barack-obama-vice-presidential-choice.jpg

Leave a Reply

167 Comments on "Who will be Obama’s VP?"

Easy-E
Member
[quote comment=”101739″]As I like jscirish27’s take on no longer getting involved in political wars, this will be my last post in such discussion for a long long while. bradykp (#162) and Easy (#164), you don’t need my definition, but rather you should refer to the forensics DNA definition of what a person is. Please refer also to any dictionary (hopefully a scientific one) on what a person is – because it’s clearly defined universally as a human. Which is why I always say a person is a human, period (there are no sub categories of partial human, kind of human, not so much human). Now, you guys and others are more than welcome to have your personal opinion of what a person is. I don’t care. But when we get into legal discussion revolving around US Constitutional rights in the BoR, everyone shall find fact in scientific determination. Justices in a court are not scientific experts in determining person-hood status, they’re legal experts. For any court justice to rationalize what they think a person is, and ignore the scientific criteria is just flat out in error and falls under the fallacy of appeal to authority – meaning just because a justice is a judge and legal expert in law does not give credibility in their non-expert determination of species H. s. sapiens. (human). Again, there’s no way anyone can say that a person is not plainly a human, and that a life form is as scientifically defined as such. The… Read more »
bradykp
Member
bradykp
[quote comment=”101739″]As I like jscirish27’s take on no longer getting involved in political wars, this will be my last post in such discussion for a long long while. bradykp (#162) and Easy (#164), you don’t need my definition, but rather you should refer to the forensics DNA definition of what a person is. Please refer also to any dictionary (hopefully a scientific one) on what a person is – because it’s clearly defined universally as a human. Which is why I always say a person is a human, period (there are no sub categories of partial human, kind of human, not so much human). Now, you guys and others are more than welcome to have your personal opinion of what a person is. I don’t care. But when we get into legal discussion revolving around US Constitutional rights in the BoR, everyone shall find fact in scientific determination. Justices in a court are not scientific experts in determining person-hood status, they’re legal experts. For any court justice to rationalize what they think a person is, and ignore the scientific criteria is just flat out in error and falls under the fallacy of appeal to authority – meaning just because a justice is a judge and legal expert in law does not give credibility in their non-expert determination of species H. s. sapiens. (human). Again, there’s no way anyone can say that a person is not plainly a human, and that a life form is as scientifically defined as such. The… Read more »
MidnightRacer
Member
As I like jscirish27’s take on no longer getting involved in political wars, this will be my last post in such discussion for a long long while. bradykp (#162) and Easy (#164), you don’t need my definition, but rather you should refer to the forensics DNA definition of what a person is. Please refer also to any dictionary (hopefully a scientific one) on what a person is – because it’s clearly defined universally as a human. Which is why I always say a person is a human, period (there are no sub categories of partial human, kind of human, not so much human). Now, you guys and others are more than welcome to have your personal opinion of what a person is. I don’t care. But when we get into legal discussion revolving around US Constitutional rights in the BoR, everyone shall find fact in scientific determination. Justices in a court are not scientific experts in determining person-hood status, they’re legal experts. For any court justice to rationalize what they think a person is, and ignore the scientific criteria is just flat out in error and falls under the fallacy of appeal to authority – meaning just because a justice is a judge and legal expert in law does not give credibility in their non-expert determination of species H. s. sapiens. (human). Again, there’s no way anyone can say that a person is not plainly a human, and that a life form is as scientifically defined as such. The real… Read more »
Easy-E
Member
[quote comment=”101636″]The abortion debate revolves around the issue person-hood. This is the case both in legal and social discourse. All legal and private conversations which errantly use the false claim that a fetus is not a person, thus does not have person-hood rights in the BoR of the U.S. Constitution. With regards to the presidential and VP candidates taking positions, and relevant to this thread, the abortion debate cannot refute that a fetus is a human, and is a person. Because a person is not defined by the many false claims others out there put forth. Only science, DNA, and life form status can. I’ve answered War vs Abortion dilemna in post #112 – i hope in clear enough terms. [quote comment=”101627″]Read my post again. Where did I say that a fetus wasn’t human? I spoke of a clump of cells, do I need to define that they are human cells? Sorry, I thought that was self-explanatory. OK, for you I’ll be specific, a clump of HUMAN CELLS versus a self-aware, cognitive person. An individual, with a memory and experiences and identity. Either way, you missed the point entirely. Congratulations.[/quote] There’s no point missed. Your side tries to remove BoR US Constitutional rights from a human fetus, which is scientifically a person, by criteria that has nothing to do with science, but rather an attempt to categorize and differentiate based upon that which you can see above in your post (“self-aware, cognitive person. An individual, with a memory and experiences… Read more »
MidnightRacer
Member

[quote comment=”101686″]MR-I’m always good for a laugh. Honestly, I have strong political convictions but I rarely discuss them here because everyone is so strident in their viewpoints. Rarely does anyone come away feeling educated or informed, but usually more entrenched in their previously held positions. Assumptions are easily made as well, and people characterize others without fully understanding their overall views based on a few quotes. That’s why I only usually discuss things I feel especially passionate about such as food politics and of course Duke, the Bush’s Baked Beans dog (see other thread).[/quote]

I hear ya, good advice. I’m getting me some beans.

wpDiscuz