saddleback mountain: the obama/mccain evangelical forum

I want to write something about last night’s forum with McCain and Obama hosted by evangelical pastor Rick Warren, but I still can’t seem to find the right words… So, if it’s alright with you, I’ll just ramble until I fall asleep…

I’ve got to give Obama credit for doing it. It takes balls to walk into a conservative megachurch offering something other than simplistic answers. The folks were respectful, but his message clearly didn’t resonate with them. McCain, by contrast, had people up on their feet with his perfectly-honed two-word responses. Essentially he said that he was “pro life,” and “anti-evil.” Obama, the silly, over-educated, elitist liberal that he is, gave the kinds of well-reasoned arguments that you would expect from… well… a world leader. He didn’t just say, as McCain did, “I believe evil exists – As President, I will not negotiate with it – I will hunt it down and kill it.” Obama said that it was complicated, and, of course, he’d work with other nations through diplomatic channels if at all possible before just labeling a country and its people “evil” and attacking. There’s no applause for that, though. The folks at Saddleback, it seems, want a President, unburdened by facts, who can instinctively sense evil after asking for the Lord’s guidance.

On abortion, McCain also got huge applause. He said he was against it. Period. And that he’d only nominate Supreme Court justices that agreed. Obama responded to the same question by saying that he didn’t like abortion, but that he supported a woman’s right to decide for herself. He said, however, that he’d work to see fewer abortions as President, but that clearly didn’t mean anything to those folks in the Saddleback audience. It looks as though they’d rather vote for a person who says adamantly that it’s evil, even if it means there are, in fact, more abortions performed. Abortions were down under Clinton, and they’ve risen under Bush. But that apparently doesn’t matter. What matters is that they supported a one-dimensional “pro life” candidate… I’m frustrated… I know that this was a complete setup for McCain, and that Obama probably didn’t have much to lose, but it sends me off the deep end when I hear all the clapping for McCain and his simplistic answers… Here, in case you didn’t see the forum, are clips from each candidate. Hopefully they illustrate my point.

[update: It seems as though abortion rates did not rise under Bush, as I’d claimed in my post. For details, please see the comments section.]

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

47 Comments

  1. Brackache
    Posted August 17, 2008 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    Everybody’s stupid and wrong about something, especially in groups.

  2. Posted August 18, 2008 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    Personally, I’m tired of elected leaders (and would-be elected leaders) pandering to religious nuts, and I’m disgusted to see the Democrats following the Republicans’ lead on this.

  3. Carri
    Posted August 18, 2008 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    I liked the question about the issue of adoption, that was clearly a setup for McCain to talk about his own adopted daughter. The whole thing was rigged.

  4. Posted August 18, 2008 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    “Abortions were down under Clinton, and they’ve risen under Bush.”

    I don’t know where you are getting this. According to the CDC data I worked with recently, abortions have been steadily declining since the early 90’s. I doubt it has anything to do with what president is in office.

  5. Meta
    Posted August 18, 2008 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    Looks like you’re right, Dude. According to the Annenberg Political Fact Check, the claim has been made for years, but the data doesn’t support it.

    http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html

  6. Ty
    Posted August 18, 2008 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Contrary to assurances by Warner, McCain was not in a “cone of silence” when Barack was answering the questions. He was listening, and working on his responses to those same questions.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/us/politics/18mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

  7. Jerry Lot
    Posted August 18, 2008 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Must have read Stassen’s article.

    Pro-life? Look at the fruits
    by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen

    I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, “pro-life” is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world.

    I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information – federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report – but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing.

    Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation’s abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute’s studies).

    Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

    I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky’s increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan’s increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania’s increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).

    Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

    How could this be? I see three contributing factors:

    First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

    Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.

    Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency – with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million – abortion increases.

    The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know – as does my son David – that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, father, and child needs public and family support.

    What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.

  8. Jerry Lot
    Posted August 18, 2008 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    I also wanted to tell you that a transcript from the forum can be found at http://rickwarrennews.com/transcript/.

  9. Chelsea
    Posted August 18, 2008 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Do you remember the Gore-Bush debates? Do you remember how bright, reasoned and presidential Mr. Gore appeared–and, beside him, how idiotic, how downright befuddled, his opponent did?

    Do you remember George the First pretending to get angry at a reporter (Rather, was it?) to appear tough and decisive? Remember Reagan..?

    No one ever went broke (or lost an election) underestimating the public.

  10. Diana
    Posted August 18, 2008 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    The Litmus Test: Can Obama or McCain speak The either of these scriptures in public?

    Jhn 14:6
    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    1 Cor 12:3 … no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

  11. Brackache
    Posted August 18, 2008 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    Diana, why quoteth thou the King James version? We Protestants are always so quick to condemn Catholics for doggedly hanging on to an ancient language (Latin) instead of switching to the vernacular, yet so many Protestants switch to King James English whenever they quote scripture or pray. For soothe, it driveth me nuts!!! Renaissance festival English is not holier than modern English!!!

    Alright, that was quite a digression on my part.

  12. mark
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 12:03 am | Permalink

    I believe you, Dude. I trust Fact Check, and, if they say the claim is bogus, I won’t argue it… I will point out, however, that Stassen continues to defend his claims. Here’s a clip:

    …The thirty-year trend confirms it. Abortion rates move in tandem with unemployment rates of women over the last thirty years. From 1973 to 1980, women’s unemployment increased from approximately 6% to 7.6%, and the abortion rate increased from 16 to 29 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 45. (Of course, these were the first years after Roe v Wade, which surely also contributed mightily to the increase in abortions.) But then abortions did not keep increasing. From 1980 to 1992, unemployment decreased from 7.6% to 5.5% briefly, and then partway up briefly to 7%. During this period of slow decrease in unemployment, the abortion rate slowly decreased from 29 to 26. During the Clinton administration, unemployment dropped nicely to 4.5%, and the abortion rate dropped significantly to 21. During the present administration, women’s unemployment increased above 6%, and the abortion rate appears to have increased to 22…

  13. Posted August 19, 2008 at 1:48 am | Permalink

    Stassen’s article above is an abhorrent use of statistics. I can’t believe this even got published.

  14. EoS
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 3:36 am | Permalink

    Saddleback Church is an extremely liberal mega church in California. Rick Warren believes that Global Warming is true and that somehow humans can save the environment from global catastrophe. His church spends millions of dollars treating Aids victims in Africa. By no stretch of the imagination can you call Rick Warren a conservative evangelical. He’s the self-proclaimed, mega-rich leader of the “new evangelicalism” which is at odds with traditional beliefs. It was a perfect environment for Obama to do extremely well, but as Mark pointed out, his message clearly didn’t resonate with them.

    I believe Dude on the abortion statistics. Right to Life consistently reports a decline in abortions. However, its no cause for celebration. A greater percentage of human life is now destroyed by morning after pills or Plan B/RU-486 and these are not included in the reported abortion statistics.

    Abortion rates can’t be blamed on the president or the economy. It’s a moral failure. It’s the influence of a culture that encourages unmarried women to have unprotected sex even when they’re not in a position to provide the essentials to raise their children. If it’s an inconvenience once they’re pregnant then they can choose to kill him/her.

    Washtenaw County has a program that taxpayers have funded with over a million dollars in the past ten years to provide health care to ensure healthy babies of poor, minority women. The group receiving the funds reports a greater than 99% success rate achieved in that these women deliver babies of healthy birth weights. More than 75% of these poor, minority women who have received treatment in this program do not even give birth. This is more than double the national average for abortions in this targeted group. Don’t blame the president – it’s your tax dollars and your lack of concern that allows this eugenics program to thrive in our community. What group does the county feel is best able to provide prenatal care to poor, minority mothers? Planned Parenthood.

  15. maryd
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    Planned Parenthood of MI does give some of the best health care at the best price in town. They were my sole health provider for many years while uninsured. Abortion services make up less than 2% of their services. PP is about prevention and that is what lowers abortion rates. When women are able to control their own fertility we all win.

  16. EoS
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    Mary,

    These women were all pregnant when they were referred for prenatal care and only 25% actually gave birth. I guess it is health care at the best price in town – abortion is cheaper than delivery, but taxpayers are being duped into thinking they are funding healthy babies. Medicare pays for the actual abortions – our county funds are used to convince them to abort. I never considered women unable to control their own fertility – abstinence never results in pregnancy.

  17. EoS
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    My bad – I should have said Medicaid in my last post.

  18. Reality
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    So, believing in global warming and helping people in Africa makes Rick Warren liberal. That’s funny.

  19. EoS
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    What makes it liberal is that he prioritizes these above spreading the Gospel. They may be good things in themselves, but they can’t save lost souls. What good is it to treat the sick during their dying days if they end up dying in a state of unbelief that would condemn them to an eternity in hell?

  20. Robert
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    EoS, I’m convinced that the Internet is the Anti-Christ, and a connection is the mark of the Devil. So i’m surprised to see you here.

  21. Posted August 19, 2008 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    Thank God for abortion. It’s better than infanticide, a practice that has been used for generations to control family size, conserve food resources and to reduce the number of female births. Anyone who thinks abortion is a bad idea forgets that this is what people did (and still do in places where abortion is not available).

  22. Brackache
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Oh boy, I’m about to pee gasoline on the bonfire here, but I fail to see the difference, dude. Is it the umbillical chord? Or that the vaginal opening is the seperation between two dimensions or something? Or is it just outta-sight, oughtta mind? I don’t get it.

  23. Robert
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    My God, dude where are you coming from? And I thought I was offensive.

  24. Brackache
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    Wait ’till I start chucking caterpillars at people and talking about variable rates of change.

  25. Brackache
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Wait ’till I start chucking caterpillars at people and talking about variable rates of change.

    It’s a simple question. What’s the difference and why?

  26. Brackache
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Caught me in an edit.

  27. mark
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    I personally don’t like the idea of abortion. I’d like to think that, if I was a woman, I wouldn’t consider it except if my life was in jeopardy, or, God forbid, in the case of r-pe or inc-st. Truth is, though, I don’t know what I’d do if I were 17 and unmarried. I’d like to think that I’d have the child and either give it up for adoption or keep it. But who really knows… One thing I do know, though, is that something’s wrong when a group of wealthy white men legislates what women can and cannot do with their own bodies… Believe me, if it were women passing laws about the illegality of s-x for purposes other than procreation, or just plain old ejaculation, we’d have riots on our hands… I rarely say anything good about Bill Clinton, but I think that he was right on when he said that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” We should try, as Obama said the other night, to get the numbers down, but we shouldn’t try to do it through criminalization…. And, if you haven’t read it in a while, check out “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

  28. Brackache
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    A couple thoughts:

    1) To those who believe abortion is murder, anti-murder laws are typically not within the jurisdiction of the Federal government.

    2) I know a guy that is a great guy who was the product of a rape. I think he’s glad no one aborted him for something that wasn’t his fault.

    Not trying to offend, just throwing that out there.

  29. Ol' E Cross
    Posted August 19, 2008 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    Okay, I know I’m entering this conversation a bit late (I got an excuse) but a few thoughts:

    Way back to cmadler: One of things some of us like about Obama is his proclaimed willingness to meet with nuts in, say, Iran and Korea. I’d think we should be glad he’s willing to meet with “nuts” in the U.S., as well. Seems to be in line with overall message of being a uniter and meeting with all parties, friend or foe.

    Along those lines and on EoS’s comments: It’s worth taking a moment to pause and watch the long overdue disintegration of the religious right and redefining of religious issues. Realize that it’s huge that someone like Warren welcomed a Democratic candidate to his pulpit. Huge. It may make things messy, on some issues, for the Democratic party, but it is potentially bringing in millions of allies on other, major issues, like global warming, poverty, aids and the like. And, historically and theologically, Rick Warren is still a conservative evangelical. Just not a raving fundamentalist like EoS would like him to be.

    As a big aside to BA: Yes, I also know and love the friend who was the pre-Roe v. Wade child of rape. And, it’s been food for thought for me. But, and this is purely an evaluation of a point, the fact that someone is alive who is happy they weren’t aborted is irrelevant to the morality of abortion. We could all have lots and lots of extra children by now that would be happy to be alive if contraception was illegal. There’s plenty of reasons to be for or against abortion, I just don’t think that one pans out unless we’re all willing say it’s wrong to deprive anyone of life, whether by abortion or birth control, and we’re willing to make as many babies as we can possibly can.

  30. Brackache
    Posted August 20, 2008 at 12:04 am | Permalink

    Eh, I got an easy answer to that. Not really feeling the online abortion argument right now, though. See ya round the neighborhood.

  31. EoS
    Posted August 20, 2008 at 8:00 am | Permalink

    Mark,
    If a woman’s life were in jeopardy due to pregnancy, she would have a c-section, but not an abortion. Or surgery to remove a fetus developing in a fallopian tube, but not an abortion. Abortion is for the benefit of men who won’t shoulder the responsibility of the consequences of their actions. It’s for the benefit of wealthy white men who throw money at a woman whom they have used and then send her to a clinic to destroy the evidence of their misdeeds.

    It hurts women. It causes pain, depression, and life-long grief. It increases a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer. It reduces her ability to give birth to a healthy baby at a later date.

    If it’s criminalized, the charges would be against the provider, not the mother. Abortion providers are also disproportionately wealthy, white men.

    Abortion is homicide. It’s a national disgrace – 45 million dead since Roe v. Wade. A generation lost. A genocide of unprecedented numbers. There is no valid reason to destroy the youngest, most vulnerable members of our society.

  32. Curt Waugh
    Posted August 20, 2008 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    EoS writes:

    “They may be good things in themselves, but they can’t save lost souls.”

    How the hell do you know? Seriously. What are you talking about? Are you Jesus? Are you God? You are one hubristic SOB to say stuff like this. Get humble, dude, or you’re in big trouble.

    I am SO SICK of human beings speaking for or against “God”. Read your Bible, Jerry Fallwell. God is omnipotent and omniscient. By definition, you can’t begin to know ANYTHING about God. You are a finite being trying to understand infinity. It’s simply not your place to claim to know anything. Not one single thing. As soon as you admit that you really don’t know shit, maybe (just maybe), then you’ll find some actual truth. Until then, please stop speaking for God. It clearly appointed me its spokesperson. So sayeth I.

  33. Brackache
    Posted August 20, 2008 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    No disrespect Curt, but you kinda contradicted yourself a lot there with the “read your bible,” “God is this and God is that,” and “you can’t know anything about God.”

    And what definition of omnipotent and/or omniscient states that those characteristics make ANY knowledge of a being who possesses them impossible?

    I think the word you’re looking for is “EVERYTHING,” not “ANYTHING.”

  34. Curt Waugh
    Posted August 20, 2008 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    You’re absolutely right, Brack, I should not have said “read your Bible”. Those are the words of people, too. And don’t get started with “No, they’re the word of God.” That’s simply one of many opinions. People wrote them down. People said they were the word of God. Who ya gonna believe? Joseph Smith said his creepy little stones spoke the word of God, too. Do you believe that? Muhammad said he wrote down the word of God. Do you believe that? Are you telling me that you are picking and choosing here? On what do you base your decision?

    The definition of omnipotent and omniscient that I use takes into account the concept of infinity. ANY finite value, as compared to infinity, is more-or-less zero. We, the finite, all are zero. THAT is a humbling thought now, eh? It’s a non-denominational belief I wish more people shared.

  35. Brackache
    Posted August 20, 2008 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Says you and your Urim and Thummim.

  36. Posted August 20, 2008 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    “Abortion is for the benefit of men who won’t shoulder the responsibility of the consequences of their actions. It’s for the benefit of wealthy white men who throw money at a woman whom they have used and then send her to a clinic to destroy the evidence of their misdeeds.”

    This is absolute crap. By and large women decide to get abortions on their own. Women decide what children they raise. Men have little say in the matter. I’ve known many, many women who have had abortions and none of them chose that route lightly, nor did they choose it because a man told them to. Often, they had no man to raise the child, and foresaw the difficulties of raising children alone. You truly do not give women credit here.

    “It hurts women. It causes pain, depression, and life-long grief. It increases a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer.”

    I won’t disagree that it is an extremely painful decision, but, honestly, most serious decisions in life are. I have had a girlfriend who aborted my (our) child ad I certainly am not proud.

    However, the link between abortion and breast cancer is extremely minimal. I have done research in this area and have found that the few credible studies that support this theory only support that it may have an effect, which is quite small. You do not know what you are talking about.

    “If it’s criminalized, the charges would be against the provider, not the mother. Abortion providers are also disproportionately wealthy, white men.”

    This may or may not be true, but if it is criminalized, it will be stigmatized and women who want abortions will be socially marginalized. There is nothing wrong with a woman who decides that she does not want to bring a child to term. All of our mothers made that decision. I doubt any woman chooses abortion with anything but a heavy heart. The truth is, not everyone can become a parent.

    “Abortion is homicide. It’s a national disgrace – 45 million dead since Roe v. Wade. A generation lost. A genocide of unprecedented numbers. There is no valid reason to destroy the youngest, most vulnerable members of our society.”

    There is every reason that a person may need to destroy their child. Lack of resources is one. Lack of ability is one. Lack of wanting a child is one. I, personally, come from a family that should have never had children. Abortion was illegal back then. I am happy to be alive now, but I wish for my siblings sake that my parents would have never had children. They just were not made to be parents and did not have the resources, financially or emotionally, to raise a child.

    If people like you win, then we will see women treated no better than governments like the Taliban did. Women will be nothing more than producers of children, unable to make their own reproductive decisions and firmly at the will of a patriarchy which tells them that, once pregnant, they have no right to make decisions about what man’s child they will produce.

    Infanticide was worse because it was unregulated. Now, at least, the same outcome is done under hygenic circumstances with federal regulation. Humans have always practiced it and they always will because not every child can be born and raised under in a resource rich, white American, Chiristian household.

  37. Posted August 20, 2008 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

    “What makes it liberal is that he prioritizes these above spreading the Gospel. They may be good things in themselves, but they can’t save lost souls. What good is it to treat the sick during their dying days if they end up dying in a state of unbelief that would condemn them to an eternity in hell?”

    Personally, I don’t know shit about God except that He is unknowable to my pathetically small mortal mind. I seriously doubt that God is like a cartoon that splits people into “good guys” and “bad guys”. I like to think that a superior being is a bit more nuanced. Certainly Christ was. It’s people like you that spoil Christ’s word for the rest of us but telling fairy tales and Cowboy and Indian stories.

  38. mark
    Posted August 20, 2008 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    I’d also like to add, that, whatever laws we pass in the United States concerning abortion, those with the financial resources to do so will still have them. Before they were legal here, when poor women were dying in alleys, the wealthy were having procedures done in Sweden. So, no, the wealthy men in Washington calling for the repeal of Roe v Wade don’t really care because they know it won’t effect them. If one of George Bush’s daughters gets pregnant at 15 by a pool boy, I’ll bet my house that she won’t have the baby, regardless of the Supreme Court justices her father may have been responsible for.

  39. Brackache
    Posted August 21, 2008 at 12:49 am | Permalink

    Oh dude! You’re missing out on the nuance and irony of the worst sinners getting to be the good guys and the self-righteous guys suddenly finding themselves the supreme a-holes! But… each to his/her own.

  40. EoS
    Posted August 21, 2008 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Dude –

    You’re right. I haven’t been fair in assigning the blame. Women who choose to abort should own up to their responsibility in making that decision. They are not blameless, in fact, they are ultimately the person most responsible for this decision.

    However, the majority of women who make the very difficult decision to have an abortion will tell you that they felt they had no other choice. They typically aren’t in a financial position to raise the baby (often by themselves), or they feel they can’t put their career ambitions on hold, or they feel inadequately prepared to take on the role of motherhood. These are all legitimate reasons to refrain from having unprotected sex, but not sufficient justification for homicide.

    Mark-
    When abortion was illegal, rich women still got abortions in hospitals right here in the United States. They were scheduled for procedures to correct “incomplete miscarriages”. The overwhelming majority of illegal abortions obtained by poor women were provided by licensed physicians who “moonlighted” for the extra tax-free income. That women were dying in back alleys as a result of botched coat hanger abortions is a myth.

  41. Meta
    Posted August 21, 2008 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    Interesting article here:

    http://blog.au.org/2008/08/20/saddleback-sideshow-presidential-professions-of-faith-distract-voters-from-the-core-issues-of-the-day/

  42. Curt Waugh
    Posted August 21, 2008 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    “Says you and your Urim and Thummim.”

    Geez, Brack, I didn’t know there was gonna be homework. What happened to the dumbing-down of America?

  43. Posted October 1, 2008 at 1:11 am | Permalink

    The payday loan industry has been the key target for corrupt politicians, from all sides, seeking an increase in voter support at the expense of what’s best for the general public. Governors of several states including, Georgia, North Carolina, and Oregon completely drove payday loan businesses out of their states. The negative effects of driving out payday loan companies from these states, appears to have not been the best idea for its’ citizens. For instance, in Georgia, the bankruptcy filings, bounced checks and foreclosures all grew overwhelmingly after the cash advance option was taken away from them. In spite of this downbeat information, following the closure of payday loans in these states, several other governors continue to try and follow suit. Leading national politicians, such as presidential hopeful Barack Obama, are now making it their mission to eliminate the industry completely once and for all. Should such efforts be judged successful, the possibility is very real for increased unemployment rates, more debt, more foreclosures and an even more crippled economy.

    Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
    Professional Blogging Team
    Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
    Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
    Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

  44. Posted October 8, 2008 at 4:29 am | Permalink

    Many of our leaders, such as Obama, are trying to limit the accessibility of short term, high demand financial assistance. Some areas are attempting to put legislation in place that would limit where these legitimate businesses can operate. Some states, such as Georgia and North Carolina, have out-and-out banned the industry altogether, and others are close behind. Across the nation, citizens are trying to have their voices heard by fighting legislative bans on the payday loan industry. The odd turn of events is that Obama and others are trying to eliminate an entire industry, losing thousands of jobs in the process and thousands more in potential jobs, during a time when unemployment and financial hardship is at the highest in recent memory, all in the name of political gain.

    Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
    Professional Blogging Team
    Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
    Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
    Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

  45. Posted October 22, 2008 at 4:56 am | Permalink

    On Wednesday, October 14, 2008, Americans tuned in to the third and final U.S. Presidential Debate in Hempstead, New York. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois went into the debate with an eight-point lead, based on CNN’s compilation of national poll averages. It looked as though Obama was satisfied to sit on his lead, but Arizona Senator John McCain took full advantage of Obama’s contentment. McCain tested the strength and validity of Obama’s policies, judgment and qualities of character. Obama countered the challenge by pointing out the failures of the economic policies enacted by the Bush Administration over the past eight years. McCain argued that he is “not President Bush.” McCain stated that, if elected, he would sanction an “across the board spending freeze.” Obama’s position sounded more conservative because he intends to “go through the federal budget page by page, line by line” to allocate taxpayers’ money to the appropriate programs and to cut the programs that aren’t working as they should. Both presidential hopefuls think their economic plans will bring America the change it needs. However, their policies could eliminate consumer access to payday loans. Americans live in “the land of the free,” and special interest groups (i.e. banks and credit unions) shouldn’t be able to rob us of the freedoms that make this country as great as it is.Post Courtesy of Personal Money StoreProfessional Blogging TeamFeed Back: 1-866-641-3406Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.htmlBlog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyb

  46. stella
    Posted November 27, 2008 at 5:25 am | Permalink

    If you are already actively practicing cannibalism they need to hear from you on the “where will i go when things get bad” thread.

  47. mark
    Posted November 27, 2008 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Stella’s comment doesn’t make a lot of sense now that I’ve removed the comment that preceded it. I debated keeping it up, but ultimately I decided that I didn’t want to encourage the use of either the n-word or the k-word here. Sorry to all of you free speech advocates out there.

    The funny thing was that the guy who left it misspelled “hate” so it looked more like “ate.” So, when he wanted to tell us all that he hated blacks and Jews, he instead told us that he “ahte” them…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Melissa Detloff