Comments on: Liveblogging the McCain / Obama Debate #3. http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/10/liveblogging-the-mccain-obama-debate-3.html reflections on culture, politics, and religion from an evangelical worldview Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:26:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: onlinereplicacatalogsshttp://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/10/liveblogging-the-mccain-obama-debate-3.html/comment-page-1#comment-95226 onlinereplicacatalogss Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:20:31 +0000 http://evangelicaloutpost.com.s17512.gridserver.com/?p=2874#comment-95226 <a>stuhrling chronograph watches</a> <a>watches volleyball</a> stuhrling chronograph watches
watches volleyball

]]> By: jvkoxqgm msgbzeqdjhttp://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/10/liveblogging-the-mccain-obama-debate-3.html/comment-page-1#comment-95225 jvkoxqgm msgbzeqdj Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:30:31 +0000 http://evangelicaloutpost.com.s17512.gridserver.com/?p=2874#comment-95225 fhtygio wpbkqntj tevdx advo xlwfcrp oftcmwix jvmtrpu fhtygio wpbkqntj tevdx advo xlwfcrp oftcmwix jvmtrpu

]]> By: jvkoxqgm msgbzeqdjhttp://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/10/liveblogging-the-mccain-obama-debate-3.html/comment-page-1#comment-95224 jvkoxqgm msgbzeqdj Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:29:54 +0000 http://evangelicaloutpost.com.s17512.gridserver.com/?p=2874#comment-95224 fhtygio wpbkqntj tevdx advo xlwfcrp oftcmwix jvmtrpu fhtygio wpbkqntj tevdx advo xlwfcrp oftcmwix jvmtrpu

]]> By: jvkoxqgm msgbzeqdjhttp://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/10/liveblogging-the-mccain-obama-debate-3.html/comment-page-1#comment-95223 jvkoxqgm msgbzeqdj Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:28:57 +0000 http://evangelicaloutpost.com.s17512.gridserver.com/?p=2874#comment-95223 fhtygio wpbkqntj tevdx advo xlwfcrp oftcmwix jvmtrpu fhtygio wpbkqntj tevdx advo xlwfcrp oftcmwix jvmtrpu

]]> By: smmtheoryhttp://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/10/liveblogging-the-mccain-obama-debate-3.html/comment-page-1#comment-95222 smmtheory Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:27:58 +0000 http://evangelicaloutpost.com.s17512.gridserver.com/?p=2874#comment-95222 <blockquote>I was a Republican until they went overboard pandering to you guys.</blockquote> I've never been a Republican, and I've never been a Democrat, and I've never been a subscriber to any other political party. For some reason though, I just can't quite wrap my mind around you being a moderate either, least-wise like the majority of Americans.

I was a Republican until they went overboard pandering to you guys.

I’ve never been a Republican, and I’ve never been a Democrat, and I’ve never been a subscriber to any other political party. For some reason though, I just can’t quite wrap my mind around you being a moderate either, least-wise like the majority of Americans.

]]> By: David N.http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/10/liveblogging-the-mccain-obama-debate-3.html/comment-page-1#comment-95221 David N. Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:05:23 +0000 http://evangelicaloutpost.com.s17512.gridserver.com/?p=2874#comment-95221 Rob Ryan, According to most polls, somewhere around 40% of Americans identify themselves as "evangelical." Not all identify with Conservatism, but most do. There are of course many other Christians in America who would not consider themselves evangelical that are also conservative. So it is hardly the case that some tiny minority of religious fundies has somehow hijacked American politics. You also make too many generalizations, to the point of simply being inaccurate. Almost no Christian that I know of (including Dustin and the other bloggers here) thinks that John McCain is an ideal candidate. He's really just the lesser of two evils. The real issue here is not whether we evangelical Christians have been duped into blindly following Republican politicians wherever they lead us, but whether or not we think Barak Obama is seriously a better option than McCain. So you're simply poking at straw men when you assume without good reason that Dustin only attacks Obama because he's been duped by the right-wingers. He attacks Obama because he genuinely disagrees with his policies (or lack thereof) and honestly doesn't think he's qualified to lead the nation. And of course you use the tired canard that Republicans are only interested in making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I understand that it's easier for you to oppose someone if you vilify them to the point of being almost less than human, but this is hardly fair. Most Republicans are just as concerned about creating a strong economy as are Democrats, they simply prefer creating jobs for the poor rather than giving them handouts. And before you blame the whole economic crisis on Bush, and make the leap that all Republican economic policy is to blame, remember that many Conservative commentators have been criticizing Bush's economic plans for years (and of course, both parties share the blame for this current situation). Don't get me wrong, I would prefer that I didn't have to choose between helping the poor and saving the unborn. So even if I thought you were correct in your assessment of Republican economic policy, I wouldn't be happy about my choices this election. The point is that when it comes to helping the poor and strengthening the economy, we both want the same end, we simply disagree on the means. By the way, I should point out that your rhetoric about being enslaved to the Republican party simply masks the fact that your alternative is to enslave ourselves to the Democratic party instead. But why should I have to give up being pro-life and defending traditional marriage if I want to help the poor? Again, I simply am forced to choose the lesser of two evils (all the while I will continue to give money to my church to help the poor). Rob Ryan,
According to most polls, somewhere around 40% of Americans identify themselves as “evangelical.” Not all identify with Conservatism, but most do. There are of course many other Christians in America who would not consider themselves evangelical that are also conservative. So it is hardly the case that some tiny minority of religious fundies has somehow hijacked American politics.
You also make too many generalizations, to the point of simply being inaccurate. Almost no Christian that I know of (including Dustin and the other bloggers here) thinks that John McCain is an ideal candidate. He’s really just the lesser of two evils. The real issue here is not whether we evangelical Christians have been duped into blindly following Republican politicians wherever they lead us, but whether or not we think Barak Obama is seriously a better option than McCain. So you’re simply poking at straw men when you assume without good reason that Dustin only attacks Obama because he’s been duped by the right-wingers. He attacks Obama because he genuinely disagrees with his policies (or lack thereof) and honestly doesn’t think he’s qualified to lead the nation.
And of course you use the tired canard that Republicans are only interested in making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I understand that it’s easier for you to oppose someone if you vilify them to the point of being almost less than human, but this is hardly fair. Most Republicans are just as concerned about creating a strong economy as are Democrats, they simply prefer creating jobs for the poor rather than giving them handouts. And before you blame the whole economic crisis on Bush, and make the leap that all Republican economic policy is to blame, remember that many Conservative commentators have been criticizing Bush’s economic plans for years (and of course, both parties share the blame for this current situation).
Don’t get me wrong, I would prefer that I didn’t have to choose between helping the poor and saving the unborn. So even if I thought you were correct in your assessment of Republican economic policy, I wouldn’t be happy about my choices this election. The point is that when it comes to helping the poor and strengthening the economy, we both want the same end, we simply disagree on the means.
By the way, I should point out that your rhetoric about being enslaved to the Republican party simply masks the fact that your alternative is to enslave ourselves to the Democratic party instead. But why should I have to give up being pro-life and defending traditional marriage if I want to help the poor? Again, I simply am forced to choose the lesser of two evils (all the while I will continue to give money to my church to help the poor).

]]> By: qwertyuiophttp://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/10/liveblogging-the-mccain-obama-debate-3.html/comment-page-1#comment-95220 qwertyuiop Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:24:56 +0000 http://evangelicaloutpost.com.s17512.gridserver.com/?p=2874#comment-95220 "Talk about lies, Obama very clearly said that he believed doctors should try to save any baby born alive and said Il law already required that." I wonder how Obama would vote on a bill prohibiting slavery in Illinois if slavery was still common place. Would he openly oppose the bill or vote against it because an anti-slavery law was already in effect? Obama explained in 2001, and has never recanted, that he opposed the Illinois BAIPA because it declared a “previable fetus” to be a legal person – even though the bill only did so if the baby had achieved “complete expulsion or extraction from its mother.” The old Illinois law in question (720 ILCS 510.6) covered only situations where an abortionist declares before the abortion that there was “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb.” Humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such “sustained survival” – that is, long-term survival – is likely or possible (which is often called the point of “viability”). The old Illinois law has no bearing on many of the induced-labor abortions about which the nurses testified before the committees in Congress and the Illinois state legislature, because many of them were performed on unborn humans who were capable of being born alive, and who often were born alive, but who were not old enough to have a “reasonable likelihood of sustained survival . . . outside the womb.” Even with respect to “viable” infants, the old law is ridden with loopholes. It does not apply except when the abortionist himself declares that there is “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb.” This already-weak law was further weakened by a lengthy consent decree issued by a federal court in 1993, which among other things permanently prohibits authorities from enforcing the law’s definitions of “born alive,” “live born,” and “live birth.” On April 4, 2002, Obama spoke on the Illinois Senate floor against a bill (SB 1663 – which was not the BAIPA) that would have more strictly defined the circumstances under which the presence of a second physician (to care for a live-born baby) would be required; Obama argued that this would “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion . . . it's important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.” Two nurses from the hospital’s delivery ward, Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (who is no longer employed by the hospital), testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution that physicians at Christ Hospital have performed numerous ‘induced labor’ or ‘live-birth’ abortions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce premature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive to die. . . . According to the testimony of Mrs. Stanek and Mrs. Baker . . . physicians at Christ Hospital have used the procedure to abort healthy infants and infants with non-fatal deformities . . . Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with appropriate medical assistance. The nurses also witnessed hospital staff taking many of these live-born babies into a ‘soiled utility room’ where the babies would remain until death. One example given by Mrs. Stanek was that an aborted baby “was left to die on the counter of the soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.” Mrs. Baker testified that she “happened to walk into a ‘soiled utility room’ and saw, lying on the metal counter, a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs.” “It is not uncommon for a live aborted babies to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital one of these babies once lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. Last year alone, of the 13 babies that I am aware of who were aborted at Christ Hospital, at least four lived between 1-1/2 to 3 hours, two boys and two girls.” “Talk about lies, Obama very clearly said that he believed doctors should try to save any baby born alive and said Il law already required that.”
I wonder how Obama would vote on a bill prohibiting slavery in Illinois if slavery was still common place. Would he openly oppose the bill or vote against it because an anti-slavery law was already in effect?
Obama explained in 2001, and has never recanted, that he opposed the Illinois
BAIPA because it declared a “previable fetus” to be a legal person – even though the bill only did so if the baby had achieved “complete expulsion or extraction from its mother.”
The old Illinois law in question (720 ILCS 510.6) covered only situations where an abortionist declares before the abortion that there was “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb.” Humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such “sustained survival” – that is, long-term survival – is likely or possible (which is often called the point of “viability”). The old Illinois law has no bearing on many of the induced-labor abortions about which the nurses testified before the committees in Congress and the Illinois state legislature, because many of them were performed on unborn humans who were capable of being born alive, and who often were born alive, but who were not old enough to have a “reasonable likelihood of sustained
survival . . . outside the womb.” Even with respect to “viable” infants, the old law is ridden with loopholes. It does not apply except when the abortionist himself declares that there is “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb.” This already-weak law was further weakened by a lengthy consent decree issued by a federal court in 1993, which among other things permanently prohibits authorities from enforcing the law’s definitions of “born alive,” “live born,” and “live birth.” On April 4, 2002, Obama spoke on the Illinois Senate floor against a bill (SB 1663 – which was not the BAIPA) that would have more strictly defined the circumstances under which the presence of a second physician (to care for a live-born baby) would be required; Obama argued that this would “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion . . . it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.”
Two nurses from the hospital’s delivery ward, Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (who is no longer employed by the hospital), testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution that physicians at Christ Hospital have performed numerous ‘induced labor’ or ‘live-birth’ abortions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce premature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive to die. . . . According to the testimony of Mrs. Stanek and Mrs. Baker . . . physicians at Christ Hospital have used the procedure to abort healthy infants and infants with non-fatal deformities . . . Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with appropriate medical assistance. The nurses also witnessed hospital staff taking many of these live-born babies into a ‘soiled utility room’ where the babies would remain until death.
One example given by Mrs. Stanek was that an aborted baby “was left to die on the counter of the soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the
towel and on to the floor.” Mrs. Baker testified that she “happened to walk into a ‘soiled utility room’ and saw, lying on the metal counter, a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs.”
“It is not uncommon for a live aborted babies to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital one of these babies once lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. Last year alone, of the 13 babies that I am aware of who were aborted at Christ Hospital, at least four lived between 1-1/2 to 3 hours, two boys and two girls.”

]]> By: Rob Ryanhttp://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/10/liveblogging-the-mccain-obama-debate-3.html/comment-page-1#comment-95219 Rob Ryan Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:00:14 +0000 http://evangelicaloutpost.com.s17512.gridserver.com/?p=2874#comment-95219 "I am curious to know why you felt compelled to make that observation." It is simply this: this site is more about right-wing politics than it is about an evangelical worldview. One of the great problems with the evangelical movement is that it has become inextricably linked to the republican party, nearly entirely on the basis of two issues: abortion and gay rights. But what about the poor? What about human rights? Too many evangelicals are very keen to have the government address moral issues in line with their beliefs. Maybe that is because denying choice to women and rights to gays doesn't cost anything. When it comes to other social issues like helping those less fortunate, they think that should be done individually or by churches; suddenly, freedom becomes important. The sad thing is, you guys are led along by politicians who are far more concerned about taking care of the rich instead of establishing your religion to the extent you would like. Where is your "Marriage Protection" amendment? Where is your "culture of life? In the last forty years, all but twelve have seen a Republican administration in the White House. You are not going to get what you want, because too many of your fellow Americans do not want it. You were lucky in that you manged to get a very imbalanced Supreme Court relative to what Americans want, but that is about to change. You won't get to shove your morals down the throats of your fellow Americans. The next two Supreme Court justices will be liberals, because the Republicans have made so much a mess of things that even our ignorant electorate has had enough. You'll be right back where you started. So instead of leading the country to ruin by voting for politicians who cynically pander to what you think is right while getting everything else wrong, why don't you opt out like the Amish? We'd be better off if you did. I was a Republican until they went overboard pandering to you guys. Now I prefer big government and kowtowing to minorities to your formerly respectable party. The association between your faith and right-wing politics is poisoning both. “I am curious to know why you felt compelled to make that observation.”
It is simply this: this site is more about right-wing politics than it is about an evangelical worldview. One of the great problems with the evangelical movement is that it has become inextricably linked to the republican party, nearly entirely on the basis of two issues: abortion and gay rights. But what about the poor? What about human rights? Too many evangelicals are very keen to have the government address moral issues in line with their beliefs. Maybe that is because denying choice to women and rights to gays doesn’t cost anything. When it comes to other social issues like helping those less fortunate, they think that should be done individually or by churches; suddenly, freedom becomes important.
The sad thing is, you guys are led along by politicians who are far more concerned about taking care of the rich instead of establishing your religion to the extent you would like. Where is your “Marriage Protection” amendment? Where is your “culture of life? In the last forty years, all but twelve have seen a Republican administration in the White House. You are not going to get what you want, because too many of your fellow Americans do not want it. You were lucky in that you manged to get a very imbalanced Supreme Court relative to what Americans want, but that is about to change. You won’t get to shove your morals down the throats of your fellow Americans. The next two Supreme Court justices will be liberals, because the Republicans have made so much a mess of things that even our ignorant electorate has had enough. You’ll be right back where you started. So instead of leading the country to ruin by voting for politicians who cynically pander to what you think is right while getting everything else wrong, why don’t you opt out like the Amish? We’d be better off if you did.
I was a Republican until they went overboard pandering to you guys. Now I prefer big government and kowtowing to minorities to your formerly respectable party. The association between your faith and right-wing politics is poisoning both.

]]> By: Boontonhttp://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/10/liveblogging-the-mccain-obama-debate-3.html/comment-page-1#comment-95218 Boonton Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:04:49 +0000 http://evangelicaloutpost.com.s17512.gridserver.com/?p=2874#comment-95218 <i>McCain brings up the born alive amendment. The press has been running interference for Obama on this issue. Obama believes that any baby not born or any baby deemed not viable by a doctor (upon birth) should die. Senator Obama - why ought not doctors attempt to save every born life? </i> Talk about lies, Obama very clearly said that he believed doctors should try to save any baby born alive and said Il law <i>already</i> required that. You can argue that the law Obama voted against wasn't posing a danger to Roe but he effectively did counter the assertion that he did not think infants born alive should be given medical treatment. Taxes - Joe the plumber was an interesting take (I'm going to assume he is real, no doubt the media will have found and interviewed him by this afternoon....if it turns out he was made up, though, it will be lights out for McCain). I didn't really connect with why Joe couldn't buy a business under Obama's tax plans? Is he buying a business that will make more in profit than 98% of small businesses (most small businesses have little or no profits to tax because their owners work at the business and pay themselves a salary capable of wiping out most of the business's taxable income)? Is he currently making more than $250,000 as a plumber (not likely but not impossible)? Taxes & Spending - This might be too much to ask for but I didn't connect with any reason why we even have taxes. Obama has a bunch of tax cuts and spending proposals. McCan will eliminate the $2m for the planitarium to get a new overhead projector but have the Fed. gov't buy out our mortgages. All this combined with the fact that Bush ran up trillions in debt when times were supposedly good! Unless we aspire for the US to become a Mexico in the next 50 years we are going to have to pay this off and it's going to come from taxes. Neither side wants to be honest about this (or maybe I should say realistic, after all if we just borrowed $750B to bail out Wall Street I'm sure some are thinking why not just keep going). Education - Both sides presented a grab bag of things they like and support. Obama made the point that he had proposals that addressed education at all levels accross the US while hitting home with the argument that McCain's proposal is limited to just Washington DC. He effectively depicted his side as broad based while depicting McCain's side as only playing with the voucher hobby hoarse in DC while ignoring the rest of America. McCain muddled the response. If you're going to go full force for vouchers then do so and ignore everything else. But if you're going to muddle through the list of programs you like (i.e. Troops to Teachers etc.) then it's going to bite that you're program only applies to 2000 people in DC. McCain brings up the born alive amendment. The press has been running interference for Obama on this issue. Obama believes that any baby not born or any baby deemed not viable by a doctor (upon birth) should die. Senator Obama – why ought not doctors attempt to save every born life?
Talk about lies, Obama very clearly said that he believed doctors should try to save any baby born alive and said Il law already required that. You can argue that the law Obama voted against wasn’t posing a danger to Roe but he effectively did counter the assertion that he did not think infants born alive should be given medical treatment.
Taxes – Joe the plumber was an interesting take (I’m going to assume he is real, no doubt the media will have found and interviewed him by this afternoon….if it turns out he was made up, though, it will be lights out for McCain). I didn’t really connect with why Joe couldn’t buy a business under Obama’s tax plans? Is he buying a business that will make more in profit than 98% of small businesses (most small businesses have little or no profits to tax because their owners work at the business and pay themselves a salary capable of wiping out most of the business’s taxable income)? Is he currently making more than $250,000 as a plumber (not likely but not impossible)?
Taxes & Spending – This might be too much to ask for but I didn’t connect with any reason why we even have taxes. Obama has a bunch of tax cuts and spending proposals. McCan will eliminate the $2m for the planitarium to get a new overhead projector but have the Fed. gov’t buy out our mortgages. All this combined with the fact that Bush ran up trillions in debt when times were supposedly good! Unless we aspire for the US to become a Mexico in the next 50 years we are going to have to pay this off and it’s going to come from taxes. Neither side wants to be honest about this (or maybe I should say realistic, after all if we just borrowed $750B to bail out Wall Street I’m sure some are thinking why not just keep going).
Education – Both sides presented a grab bag of things they like and support. Obama made the point that he had proposals that addressed education at all levels accross the US while hitting home with the argument that McCain’s proposal is limited to just Washington DC. He effectively depicted his side as broad based while depicting McCain’s side as only playing with the voucher hobby hoarse in DC while ignoring the rest of America. McCain muddled the response. If you’re going to go full force for vouchers then do so and ignore everything else. But if you’re going to muddle through the list of programs you like (i.e. Troops to Teachers etc.) then it’s going to bite that you’re program only applies to 2000 people in DC.

]]> By: Mike Torenohttp://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/10/liveblogging-the-mccain-obama-debate-3.html/comment-page-1#comment-95217 Mike Toreno Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:12:28 +0000 http://evangelicaloutpost.com.s17512.gridserver.com/?p=2874#comment-95217 You: My Thoughts: McCain did very well. He brought it to Obama. Reality: CBS Poll: Uncommitted Voters Say Obama Won Final Debate You: EPIC FAIL You:
My Thoughts: McCain did very well. He brought it to Obama.
Reality:
CBS Poll: Uncommitted Voters Say Obama Won Final Debate
You:
EPIC FAIL

]]>