Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Holy Crap! Sarah Palin to be McCain's VP pick

A place to debate issues or to rant about what's on your mind. In addition to discussions about historical fiction, books, the publishing industry, and history, discussions about current political, social, and religious issues and other topics are allowed, so those who are easily offended by certain topics may want to avoid such threads. Members are expected to keep the discussions friendly and polite and to avoid personal attacks on other members. The moderators reserve the right to shut down a thread without warning if they believe it necessary.
User avatar
donroc
Compulsive Reader
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Contact:

Postby donroc » Mon September 8th, 2008, 6:01 pm

Instablogging was made for those who lack critical thinking. Most sites, left and right, preach to their choirs and feed them rumors and half-truths they want to believe.

Let the so-called blog news (and that of all media in general) fester for a few days or even weeks before accepting any of it, left and right, as fact.

That is why revelations the Friday before voting can be so damaging even if false.
User signature picture

Bodo the Apostate, a novel set during the reign of Louis the Pious and end of the Carolingian Empire.

http://www.donaldmichaelplatt.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXZthhY6OtI&feature=channel_page

User avatar
LCW
Compulsive Reader
Location: Southern California

Postby LCW » Mon September 8th, 2008, 6:49 pm

"LoveHistory" wrote:Wow! After reading letters with opposing viewpoints I'm no closer to anything! Seems people are either really pro-Sarah Palin or really anti-Sarah Palin. How can two versions be so far apart unless there's truth (and lies) in both?



Because her views are so extreme! She is against all birth control, against a woman's right to control her own reproductive cycle, she wants to teach Christian Creationsim in Biology class, she thinks the Iraq war is a task from God, thinks it's OK to ban books, and those are just a few of her beliefs. She is very far off from what the majority of Americans believe in.

Those that are more moderate in their thinking and those that are more "left wing", to use a label, can not in any way agree with such hard nose extreme policy views so naturally they will stronly object to her becoming a hair's breath away from being the leader of the free world. Those who agree with her are absolutely in favor of her because it's rare to see someone with scuh extreme political ideology up for the VP slot. And some women just want to see a woman on the ticket no matter what her politcal positions are. So the fact that she's a woman with such extreme political views make for one polarizing candidate!
Books to the ceiling,
Books to the sky,
My pile of books is a mile high.
How I love them! How I need them!
I'll have a long beard by the time I read them. --Arnold Lobel

User avatar
Telynor
Bibliophile
Location: On the Banks of the Hudson

Postby Telynor » Mon September 8th, 2008, 9:04 pm

I try very hard to keep an open mind, and I try to consider every opinion before I go into that booth on the first tuesday in Nov, and pull that lever. There's a lot about all of the candidates that I don't like, a lot.

Obama: con -- he doesn't have enough experience, but that might be a plus. pro: he's smart enough to surround himself with good advisors, and he seems to actually care about people.

Biden: con -- he's got a big, big mouth. pro -- he knows where the bodies are buried, and isn't afraid to go digging for them. He's also a powerhouse in the Senate, and if Obama is going to succeed, that's where he's going to have to convince the votes to get his policies through.

McCain: con -- he's going to be another four years of Bush politics. He's also wwaaayy out of touch with the middle and working classes. lastly, he might not survive the term, given his age and health. pro -- he has military experience, but he's very pro war about continuing the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Palin: con -- she's ultra conservative, anti-choice, anti-women's rights, and she really lacks experience. Also takes everything that doesn't agree with her as a personal attack. pro -- she's a woman. The NRA and Evangelicals love her.

User avatar
LoveHistory
Bibliomaniac
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Postby LoveHistory » Tue September 9th, 2008, 3:48 pm

"1lila1" wrote:Because her views are so extreme! She is against all birth control, against a woman's right to control her own reproductive cycle, she wants to teach Christian Creationsim in Biology class, she thinks the Iraq war is a task from God, thinks it's OK to ban books, and those are just a few of her beliefs. She is very far off from what the majority of Americans believe in.

Those that are more moderate in their thinking and those that are more "left wing", to use a label, can not in any way agree with such hard nose extreme policy views so naturally they will stronly object to her becoming a hair's breath away from being the leader of the free world. Those who agree with her are absolutely in favor of her because it's rare to see someone with scuh extreme political ideology up for the VP slot. And some women just want to see a woman on the ticket no matter what her politcal positions are. So the fact that she's a woman with such extreme political views make for one polarizing candidate!


How do you know that she personally feels that way about anything? Isn't it remotely possible that she was representing the views of the people she was elected to serve? All we have to go on here is other people's opinions. We don't know that Palin wanted books banned. It could have been that some of the constituency approached her and asked about it.

I'm not saying it's one way or the other. I'm just saying people should give each other the benefit of the doubt, but then that doesn't happen much when it comes to politics.

If Evolution can be taught in biology, so can Creationism. They both have about the same chance of being irrefutably proven. And if women could really control our reproductive cycles, cramps would be a thing of the past. Which reminds me...when did Pro-Life become Anti-Choice? Last time I checked Pro-Choice did not mean Pro-Abortion. So where is this coming from? It is possible to believe that abortion is wrong, but also respect the fact that other people may choose it. Granted the fringe fruitcakes (and every group has them) would say otherwise, but still. What on Earth happened to being even remotely willing to believe the best about people? Wow, I'm starting to sound like Obama here.

chuck
Bibliophile
Location: Ciinaminson NJ

Postby chuck » Tue September 9th, 2008, 4:15 pm

Palin is going to be interviewed this Thursday by Charles Gibson ABC....he is very fair minded and the interview will be very open to all questions.....So we will see....I really have problems with politicians that say "I need to pray about that or I need your prayers and blessing"...Please just keep your religious beliefs to yourself....My opinion.....

User avatar
LCW
Compulsive Reader
Location: Southern California

Postby LCW » Tue September 9th, 2008, 5:11 pm

:confused:
"LoveHistory" wrote: How do you know that she personally feels that way about anything? Isn't it remotely possible that she was representing the views of the people she was elected to serve?


No, this is not the first time she has run for office and the public record shows that the beliefs I stated are in fact her own personal beliefs. It's not opinon, it's fact!



"LoveHistory" wrote:If Evolution can be taught in biology, so can Creationism. They both have about the same chance of being irrefutably proven.


Please please educate yourself on Evolution before you go around saying things like that. I'm not about to get into a debate with someone who doesn't even know the subject they are debating. BTW, nothing, NOTHING is "irrefutably" proven in Science! Not the theory of gravity, cell theory, germ theory, the technotic plate theory, nothing! If evidence to contrary appears, they can ALL be proven false. But they haven't because no such evidence exists so they are fact!! Same with Evolution! Bottom line: Evolution is Science and belongs in Biology class. Creationism is a religious teaching and belongs in Sunday School!


"LoveHistory" wrote:
And if women could really control our reproductive cycles, cramps would be a thing of the past.


Seriously??

"LoveHistory" wrote:Which reminds me...when did Pro-Life become Anti-Choice? Last time I checked Pro-Choice did not mean Pro-Abortion. So where is this coming from? It is possible to believe that abortion is wrong, but also respect the fact that other people may choose it.



OK, I really have no idea what you're getting at here! Pro-choice is pro-choice! No one is "pro-abortion"! Who wakes up and say's "Oh, I think I"ll go have an abortion today, then I'll get my hair done, then I'll do the grocery shopping!" Please! Abortion is an intensely personal choice for a woman and noone knows what that individual woman is going through. It's no one's business but the woman and her doctor!!

Pro choice means having a choice in everything! Even having a child if it means it will be born to an unwed teenage mother. Even if it will be born into an abusive neglectful home. Even if it is born into abject poverty and society then asumes financial responsibilty for the child! It is choice in ALL reproductive decisions and keeping the government OUT of such an intensely personal choice!
Last edited by LCW on Tue September 9th, 2008, 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Books to the ceiling,

Books to the sky,

My pile of books is a mile high.

How I love them! How I need them!

I'll have a long beard by the time I read them. --Arnold Lobel

User avatar
LoveHistory
Bibliomaniac
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Postby LoveHistory » Wed September 10th, 2008, 4:43 pm

I can completely agree with keeping government out of personal decisions, but no one answered my question about saying "Anti-Choice" instead of "Pro-Life."

And we obviously disagree on the definition of fact. Lack of evidence to the contrary is not enough for me. Facts should be concrete, not subject to changes in scientific knowledge. I know the theory of evolution, and I don't have a problem with it. But I do have a problem with people (not anyone on this forum) calling it a proven fact.

Even if she does have radical beliefs, that's not a guarantee that she would govern according to them. If you are elected to serve the people you have two choices 1) represent them by giving them what they want (which, by the way, includes dropping something you think is a good idea if the voters don't want it); or 2) represent them by giving them what you think is best for them. Neither method is perfect. And no matter which you choose, people are going to complain.

But why is Palin guilty until proven innocent? Why not give her the benefit of the doubt? If no one addresses any of my other questions, will someone please give me a logical answer to these ones?

User avatar
princess garnet
Bibliophile
Location: Maryland

Postby princess garnet » Wed September 10th, 2008, 9:08 pm

Here's a fact check about Sarah Palin courtesy of "Newsweek" magazine:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158265/output/print
I found about this article from a library listserv that I subscribe.

User avatar
Telynor
Bibliophile
Location: On the Banks of the Hudson

Postby Telynor » Wed September 10th, 2008, 10:30 pm

"LoveHistory" wrote:I can completely agree with keeping government out of personal decisions, but no one answered my question about saying "Anti-Choice" instead of "Pro-Life."


Because people tend to get twitchy when you say 'Anti'- something. It sounds much more correct and benevolent when you say 'Pro'- something,(yes, I am being very sarcastic here) and the religious right has a very loud and reactionary views on women's rights. They tend to expound loudly on the topic, but I also notice that the moment a child is born, they loose interest in helping that child and their family having any sort of help in getting health care, education, or job that gives an actual living wage. To me, that's hypocrisy at its worst and most degrading.

"LoveHistory" wrote:And we obviously disagree on the definition of fact. Lack of evidence to the contrary is not enough for me. Facts should be concrete, not subject to changes in scientific knowledge. I know the theory of evolution, and I don't have a problem with it. But I do have a problem with people (not anyone on this forum) calling it a proven fact.


Given science, mathematics, and chemistry, the theory of evolution answers quite a few questions about how did we get here. Break it down, and it's actually quite beautiful, and given the mass of evidence out there, it's believable. Talk to most people who have had some scientific education and who can deal with mathematics and deductive reasoning, and most of them buy the theory of evolution. Most of all, it makes sense. Science is constantly evolving and discovering new things, everything changes.

"LoveHistory" wrote:But why is Palin guilty until proven innocent? Why not give her the benefit of the doubt? If no one addresses any of my other questions, will someone please give me a logical answer to these ones?


Because she's not interested in anyone else's agenda other than her own, and she's very strident about it, and unwilling to compromise. McCain is pandering to the reactionary hard-liners and trying to prove he's really listening by putting a woman on the ticket. I've looked at what she has done as a mayor and governor and frankly, she makes my skin crawl. I don't like her at a gut level and that's my bottom line when choosing. I'm not crazy about McCain either, he's pretty much a mouthpiece for the Republican party and considering the state of the nation right now, he's not making any proposed policy that's going to pull this country out of the recession/depression that it is in. No, I'm not crazy about Obama either, but right now, I know that the Republican ticket is determined to keep that wretched war in Iraq going, and wants to continue supporting big business and doesn't much care for average citizen who makes up the majority of this country. Any road, in about 55 days, there's going to be an election.

We could debate this endlessly. Each side has their thoughts in it, and in the end, it's going to come down to how people vote. If you vote -- and I urge everyone who is eligible to do so.

User avatar
Volgadon
Compulsive Reader
Location: Israel
Contact:

Postby Volgadon » Thu September 11th, 2008, 9:11 am

I read that Deb Frost letter, shock, horrors.

Sarah Palin is the US’s answer to Margaret Thatcher! Anyone who thinks she cannot handle the job or deal briskly and efficiently with ANY issue, including foreign governments … well, they haven’t met our Sarah.


Return to “Debate/Rant Forum”