PDA

View Full Version : Obama regrets abortion answer at Saddleback



The_Dark_Knight
09-07-2008, 01:19 PM
Barack Obama says his answer about abortion at the Saddleback Church forum was “probably” too flip

During separate televised interviews last month, Pastor Rick Warren asked the two presidential candidates when a baby gets human rights. Obama replied that the question is “above my pay grade,” while John McCain won love from the right by saying quickly, “At the moment of conception.”

Now, Obama tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview taped for “This Week”: “What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into … It's a pretty tough question. And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.”

In the ABC interview, Obama goes on to give the answer he wishes he’d given: “What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it's one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues, I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.

“I think the better answer — and this was reflected in the Democratic platform — is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080907/pl_politico/13217

So if he regrets his answer at Saddleback, was he playing politics then, or is he playing politics now? Make a stance and stick to your guns for crying outloud!!!

If he meant what he said at Saddleback, then stick to principle. If he means what he says now, then that's what he should have said then.

Like him or not, at least McCain has been consistent on his abortion stance.

Dolphan7
09-07-2008, 04:41 PM
And still after three tries now - He still didn't answer the original question. He refused to answer it.

To a Christian, the answer is very clear. He says he is a Christian, why can't he answer the question?

Because he is pro-abortion and won't back away from that position.

ohall
09-07-2008, 05:17 PM
He got a raise?

MoFinz
09-07-2008, 05:45 PM
He got a raise?

No, he just got some policy coaching :foundout:

Ferretsquig
09-07-2008, 06:02 PM
To a Christian, the answer is very clear. He says he is a Christian, why can't he answer the question?

Rephrase....to a Christian of my particular sect, the answer is very clear.

Dolphan7
09-07-2008, 06:21 PM
Rephrase....to a Christian of my particular sect, the answer is very clear.Rephrase - Any TRUE Christian!

ohall
09-07-2008, 06:41 PM
Rephrase....to a Christian of my particular sect, the answer is very clear.

So we can't agree when life starts so let's just decide to kill it whenever we can?

Sorry that mindset has just never made any sense to me. We're talking about a life, well a life at some point, not some monster.

Ferretsquig
09-07-2008, 07:19 PM
Rephrase - Any TRUE Christian!

To every christian there exists ten other christians out there who are all going to hell because of this insane absolutism.

Dolphan7
09-07-2008, 10:12 PM
To every christian there exists ten other christians out there who are all going to hell because of this insane absolutism.
Well, if they are going to hell, then they really aren't Christians then are they?

Tetragrammaton
09-07-2008, 10:20 PM
You Christians. Don't forget about my people. We don't want to be ruled by holy books we don't subscribe to.

Maybe you are right, D7. I will not pretend to have knowledge of the book like you, so I will take your word that life, in the view of a Christian, begins at conception. But the Bible, from what I have gathered, also has a lot of hardline systems that we don't subscribe to as a society.


If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

That seems pretty clear cut. As a Christian, Obama and McCain either need to believe adulterers should be put to death or they aren't real Christians.

Dolphan7
09-07-2008, 10:32 PM
You Christians. Don't forget about my people. We don't want to be ruled by holy books we don't subscribe to.

Maybe you are right, D7. I will not pretend to have knowledge of the book like you, so I will take your word that life, in the view of a Christian, begins at conception. But the Bible, from what I have gathered, also has a lot of hardline systems that we don't subscribe to as a society.



That seems pretty clear cut. As a Christian, Obama and McCain either need to believe adulterers should be put to death or they aren't real Christians.Hey, living under the OT dispensation there would be no man left standing alive, or woman, or child. Everyone dies. No one could ever be good enough.

Good thing we have the NT and the salvation of Grace through Jesus Christ!

Ferretsquig
09-07-2008, 10:43 PM
The word of god unless we disagree with it. Gotta love protestants....

Dolphan7
09-07-2008, 11:07 PM
The word of god unless we disagree with it. Gotta love protestants....If it weren't for those Protestants, this country would be under King George III!

Tetragrammaton
09-07-2008, 11:35 PM
If it weren't for those Protestants, this country would be under King George III!

Aren't we still?

Dolphan7
09-08-2008, 01:39 AM
Aren't we still?Only until January 20th, 2009!

The_Dark_Knight
09-08-2008, 04:55 AM
You Christians. Don't forget about my people. We don't want to be ruled by holy books we don't subscribe to.

Maybe you are right, D7. I will not pretend to have knowledge of the book like you, so I will take your word that life, in the view of a Christian, begins at conception. But the Bible, from what I have gathered, also has a lot of hardline systems that we don't subscribe to as a society.



That seems pretty clear cut. As a Christian, Obama and McCain either need to believe adulterers should be put to death or they aren't real Christians.
I'm not going to pretend to be Theologen...and if HansMojo was still around I would value his insight greatly, but I'm going to go out on a limb here...

Originally Posted by Leviticus
If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
It would be my interpretation through the Scriptures that the life to surely be put to death is not the physical body, but the eternal soul. For Christians, Salvation is granted through the Grace of God through the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. For an adulterer, forgiveness of adultery is granted through the Blood of Christ. So for the purpose of this arguement, quoting Leviticus does not apply.

Barack Obama identifies himself as a Christian. As a Christian, the foundation of life is that it begins at conception. At Saddleback, he wasn't asked if abortion was a sin...he wasn't asked to interpret God's view on abortion...he was simply asked when did he believe life began.

Now, if I were Barack Obama...and I was asked that same question, MY response would have been,

"As a Christian, I do believe that life begins at conception and as this is a political debate, I know that this is going to my stance on abortion. I personally feel that abortion is a sin...like any other sin which God can forgive someone for committing, but in regards to abortion, I do not feel that it is my place to make that choice for that woman. I believe that we all struggle with our inner demons and if a woman, for whatever reason elects to have an abortion, that is a burden that she will have to carry."

Now had he said THAT, he could have answered the question as a Christian and still saved face as to his political stance. But he wasn't even able to say when HE BELIEVES life begins.

Typical politician. "what do I say? what do I say?" before trying to come up with something witty.

The_Dark_Knight
09-08-2008, 04:59 AM
The word of god unless we disagree with it. Gotta love protestants....
Protestants didn't disagree with the Word of God...they disagreed with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which they felt, according to Scripture conflicted witht he Word of God.

Just setting the record straight :up:

ih8brady
09-08-2008, 05:29 AM
You Christians. Don't forget about my people. We don't want to be ruled by holy books we don't subscribe to.

Maybe you are right, D7. I will not pretend to have knowledge of the book like you, so I will take your word that life, in the view of a Christian, begins at conception. But the Bible, from what I have gathered, also has a lot of hardline systems that we don't subscribe to as a society.

Although I do think D7 is devout and not a liar, I would be interested in the exact passages that make those statements. Could D7 or other Christians help me out?



That seems pretty clear cut. As a Christian, Obama and McCain either need to believe adulterers should be put to death or they aren't real Christians.

Or the moral abomination of eating shrimp...and I'd love to see someone try to spin that. :d-day:

LouPhinFan
09-08-2008, 05:58 AM
Guys, all the scripture you're quoting are laws for the Jewish people that God set out in the Old Testament. Its not applicable to gentiles, post-New Testament.

There are many life lessons and morals for non-Jews in the Old Testament, but the laws and guidelines laid out in those books were never meant to be followed by gentiles. The New Testament and Jesus lay out how we should live our lives.

The notion that "life begins at conception" is a semi modern view of the church. If it doesn't begin at conception, then it begins shortly thereafter. IMO.

Someone could agrue about abortions that take place very shortly after conception, I admit there's some ground to stand on there, albeit shaky ground. Once you get far enough along that you starting getting into partial-abortions, then the "not a life" argument gets thrown out the window.

I wonder how many pro-choice advocates would still be for abortion if they had to witness the type of partial birth abortion that is at the center of that "infants rights" mess that Obama was in during his time in the Illinois legislature. I don't know about you guys but a forced birth premature infant being laid on a surgical table waving its arms, trying to gasp for any air it can with its not yet fully-formed lungs until it slowly suffocates is pretty barbaric. Akin to the Spartans throwing their weaker, unworthy children off a cliff.

But, hey, that's just me. Far be it from me to step on someone's "choice" to save that newborn's life...after all the Constitution guarantee's a woman's right to an abortion...o wait...no it doesn't...hmmmm...

poornate
09-08-2008, 07:22 AM
If you believe that life begins at the second of conception... than there is a moral dilemma that I have never understood.... How can any Christian take birth control pills? After the "moment" they cause the egg to not attach to the uterus and prevent... whatever... How does that play?

Dolphan7
09-08-2008, 01:23 PM
Although I do think D7 is devout and not a liar, I would be interested in the exact passages that make those statements. Could D7 or other Christians help me out?
Ok, but there is an expectation that you will take this to heart and not forget what you have learned in the very next post. If you can agree to that I can show you why the bible teaches life begins at conception.



Or the moral abomination of eating shrimp...and I'd love to see someone try to spin that. :d-day:Same for this one, I don't mind explaining things about the Bible, but only if the student is really interested in retaining that knowledge for the next debate.

The only reason I say these things is that I have explained both of these questions over and over, and many other posters have as well, yet the same questions keep coming up.

Why is that?

Dolphan7
09-08-2008, 01:39 PM
If you believe that life begins at the second of conception... than there is a moral dilemma that I have never understood.... How can any Christian take birth control pills? After the "moment" they cause the egg to not attach to the uterus and prevent... whatever... How does that play?
It is a good point and one of many discussions within Christiandom.

The difference is that an unfertilized egg is not life as it needs the male sperm to "fertilize it" in order for it to become a unique individual.

This is why there is so much debate over the morning after pill.

Tetragrammaton
09-08-2008, 01:56 PM
Now, if I were Barack Obama...and I was asked that same question, MY response would have been,

"As a Christian, I do believe that life begins at conception and as this is a political debate, I know that this is going to my stance on abortion. I personally feel that abortion is a sin...like any other sin which God can forgive someone for committing, but in regards to abortion, I do not feel that it is my place to make that choice for that woman. I believe that we all struggle with our inner demons and if a woman, for whatever reason elects to have an abortion, that is a burden that she will have to carry."

All right, I will accept that. That would have been an acceptable answer, and I think both sides would have been okay with it.


But, hey, that's just me. Far be it from me to step on someone's "choice" to save that newborn's life...after all the Constitution guarantee's a woman's right to an abortion...o wait...no it doesn't...hmmmm...

Technically it is the Fourteenth Amendment, not the original Constitution. Right of privacy via the Due Process Clause. Government can't tell you what to do with your body.

Ferretsquig
09-08-2008, 05:16 PM
Protestants didn't disagree with the Word of God...they disagreed with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which they felt, according to Scripture conflicted witht he Word of God.

Just setting the record straight :up:

Yes I have read Luther. I have also seen how little modern day protestants take his words into account.

Dolphan7
09-08-2008, 05:33 PM
Yes I have read Luther. I have also seen how little modern day protestants take his words into account.Well he isn't God or the Bible, but....


I'll play along for curiosity sake....


What words of Luthers are you referring to?

Ferretsquig
09-08-2008, 06:20 PM
Replace pope with preacher, catholic church with whatever modern day protestant sect, and canons with the interpretation of the english translation of the early 17th century new testament.

Blackocrates
09-08-2008, 06:29 PM
Rephrase - Any TRUE Christian!

That's a low blow D7, because any true Christian would be against the death penalty, against war, etc. right? Most Christian 'pro-lifers' aren't what they claim to be. They're not truly pro-life. They narrowly define what pro-life means to suit their own agenda.

Dolphan7
09-08-2008, 07:24 PM
That's a low blow D7, because any true Christian would be against the death penalty, against war, etc. right? Most Christian 'pro-lifers' aren't what they claim to be. They're not truly pro-life. They narrowly define what pro-life means to suit their own agenda.No that would not be a correct assessment. A Christian can be for or against the death penalty and war. These are biblical principles. As a christian I have the freedom to support or not support these two principles, it does not effect my salvation. However I would be out of line to suggest that they are not biblical.

Same for when life begins. One can support that life begins at conception, or not. But one can't make the case that God does not consider life begins at conception, because the bible makes that clear.

What it boils down to is - what does the bible say about it, and do we have the freedom to take an opposing side on it. Is it a non-essential, like eating shrimp or drinking alcohol? Or is it essential to our salvation?

In the case of war and the death penalty, those freedoms are considered non-essentials and has no bearing on our salvation.

In the case of abortion, I would caution any christian to be careful because this isn't just a decision about non-essentials, it is a decision that effects another human being. This has eternal significance to our salvation.

Blackocrates
09-08-2008, 08:00 PM
No that would not be a correct assessment. A Christian can be for or against the death penalty and war. These are biblical principles. As a christian I have the freedom to support or not support these two principles, it does not effect my salvation. However I would be out of line to suggest that they are not biblical.



In the case of war and the death penalty, those freedoms are considered non-essentials and has no bearing on our salvation.

In the case of abortion, I would caution any christian to be careful because this isn't just a decision about non-essentials, it is a decision that effects another human being. This has eternal significance to our salvation.

1. They are biblical but they are not Christian principles. Christ taught mercy, compassion, forgiveness, turn the other cheek, the golden rule, etc. Christ would be against war and capital punishment.

2. Doesn't the decision to kill a criminal or alleged criminal and the decision to go to war effect another human being? It's the same principle, you either allow life or not.

Dolphan7
09-08-2008, 08:26 PM
1. They are biblical but they are not Christian principles. Christ taught mercy, compassion, forgiveness, turn the other cheek, the golden rule, etc. Christ would be against war and capital punishment.Well I wouldn't even pretend to speak for Christ. In order to answer the question as to if Christ would be for or against war and capital punishment, we simply need to go to the bible and let it speak for him. Christ upheld the OT, meaning the death penalty as a form of punishment "in a system of justice" as was outlined in the OT. Christ didn't begrudge nations from defending themselves. To turn the other cheek is not a reference to letting people beat the crap out of you. You have the right to defend yourself, your family and your property. Christ upheld the court systems as a form of justice.


2. Doesn't the decision to kill a criminal or alleged criminal and the decision to go to war effect another human being? It's the same principle, you either allow life or not.
No it is actually different.

Murder is different than killing.

The bible is clear about murder and the punishment for that. It is also clear about the killing as a punishment for a crime within an existing system of justice, like we have here in the United States. Our country is attacked, we go to war to defend our citizens from further attacks. That is what governments do. That is what they are supposed to do. War is ugly, but sometimes it is necessary because there is evil in the world and evil must be confronted and defeated. It is the age old battle of good verses evil.

Now the taking of an innocent life for reasons of hate, anger, personal choice, etc....is Wrong with capital W! That is murder.

Killing a criminal for crimes he/she committed is called Justice.

Going to war to defend a country and it's citizens is called Self-Defense.

See the difference?

Blackocrates
09-08-2008, 09:14 PM
D7,

I was too broad because I was trying to be brief. War for self defense is permissible, but how often do we see that? I meant unjust wars, like the Iraq war where thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed. I know they weren't targetted but they were killed. Now was it murder? I don't know in order for there to be murder there needs to be malice. Are all abortions done with malice? I don't know, but I bet there have been instances where there was no malice.

Also, people have been put to death for crimes they didn't commit. Did the government do it with malice? I don't know.

But does it matter if it's murder or not? It's the intentionally killing of another human being that matters. I don't think Christ would look too favorably on the Iraq war because Iraq didn't attack us. So our government can't claim self defense. I also don't think Christ would look too favorably to individuals being killed for crimes they didn't commit.

That's why I was saying pro-lifers aren't really pro life, because they don't seem to care about innocent people being killed. I hear a lot of noise about abortion being wrong, but I don't hear those same people crying about innocent people being killed in an unjust war, or even a just war. I also don't hear them protesting the death of innocent death row inmates. That's the point I was trying to make. I see the differences but I also see similarities.

ih8brady
09-08-2008, 10:49 PM
Ok, but there is an expectation that you will take this to heart and not forget what you have learned in the very next post. If you can agree to that I can show you why the bible teaches life begins at conception.


Same for this one, I don't mind explaining things about the Bible, but only if the student is really interested in retaining that knowledge for the next debate.

The only reason I say these things is that I have explained both of these questions over and over, and many other posters have as well, yet the same questions keep coming up.

Why is that?

I can't speak for others, but I can't read every thread. I personally would just like to know what sections of the book I should read to understand the Biblical position on abortion/where life begins and why there is so much emphasis on items that really don't involve morality at all(shrimp is probably one of the more ridiculous passages I know of, which is why I mentioned it)

poornate
09-08-2008, 11:43 PM
It is a good point and one of many discussions within Christiandom.

The difference is that an unfertilized egg is not life as it needs the male sperm to "fertilize it" in order for it to become a unique individual.

This is why there is so much debate over the morning after pill.

...it stops the ferilized egg as well.... All the morning after pill is is three birth control pills...

Dolphan7
09-09-2008, 12:39 AM
...it stops the ferilized egg as well.... All the morning after pill is is three birth control pills...No, actually the Pill stops ovulation and prevents it from releasing. It never has a chance to get fertilized.

The morning after pill is a higher dose and can work before and after fertilization, thus the controversy.

Another difference is the Pill is a planned medication to prevent birth......

and the morning after pill is more like.....OOPS! I had unprotected sex last night and I am too stupid to take the pill and didn't make my mate use a condom........I better do something now before it is too late.

Tetragrammaton
09-09-2008, 12:42 AM
didn't make my mate use a condom

How long have you been an American, mate?

I don't get why the morning after pill is so necessary. You would think that between two people that they would take some sort of measure. The morning after pill is the product of alcohol.

Dolphan7
09-09-2008, 01:36 AM
I can't speak for others, but I can't read every thread. I personally would just like to know what sections of the book I should read to understand the Biblical position on abortion/where life begins and why there is so much emphasis on items that really don't involve morality at all(shrimp is probably one of the more ridiculous passages I know of, which is why I mentioned it)

Here are some passages that clearly show that God knows us before we are even in the womb, let alone anytime after. God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent. He knows us, about us, knows everything we will do or say or think, even before we were ever concieved.

God is defintely pro-life and life begins well before conception according to Him.


Ex 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Ex 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Ex 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,


JER 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;

PS 139:13
For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
PS 139:14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
PS 139:15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
PS 139:16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

Isa 44:24
"This is what the LORD says--your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by my hand”
Job 31:15
“Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?”
Job 10:8-12
"Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit.”
Isa 49:1
“Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name.”
Gal 1:15
“But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace”
Amos 1:13
“This is what the LORD says: ‘For three sins of Ammon, even for four, I will not turn back [my wrath]. Because he ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead in order to extend his borders”

On top of all this, science says life begins at conception. Science tell us that human life begins at the time of conception. From the moment fertilization takes place, the child's genetic makeup is already complete. Its gender has already been determined, along with its height and hair, eye and skin color. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully functioning being is the time to grow and develop.

Dolphan7
09-09-2008, 01:41 AM
How long have you been an American, mate?

I don't get why the morning after pill is so necessary. You would think that between two people that they would take some sort of measure. The morning after pill is the product of alcohol.I've been an American since October 13th 1961, but in a previous life I was Australian! :wink:

Dolphan7
09-09-2008, 01:49 AM
I can't speak for others, but I can't read every thread. I personally would just like to know what sections of the book I should read to understand the Biblical position on abortion/where life begins and why there is so much emphasis on items that really don't involve morality at all(shrimp is probably one of the more ridiculous passages I know of, which is why I mentioned it)As far as the emphasis on foods, it was considered to be unhealthy and impure to the body. Remember the whole point of the OT Theocracy was to somehow connect with God by themselves, doing deeds and living a Godly perfect life from every aspect of life, from eating, to sleeping, to relationships, worship, justice, temples and priests etc....

The bottom line is it could not be done. No one could follow all those rules. They were lost. That is why they, and we, needed a savior. Jesus is that savior, he removes our sin from the picture, we are no longer striving to be perfect enough for God, we are simply striving to live in humility and humbleness under the Grace of God through Jesus. He died for our sins so we won't have to. All we have to do is accept His free gift.

Dolphan7
09-09-2008, 02:15 AM
D7,

I was too broad because I was trying to be brief. War for self defense is permissible, but how often do we see that? I meant unjust wars, like the Iraq war where thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed. I know they weren't targetted but they were killed. Now was it murder? I don't know in order for there to be murder there needs to be malice. Are all abortions done with malice? I don't know, but I bet there have been instances where there was no malice.

Also, people have been put to death for crimes they didn't commit. Did the government do it with malice? I don't know.

But does it matter if it's murder or not? It's the intentionally killing of another human being that matters. I don't think Christ would look too favorably on the Iraq war because Iraq didn't attack us. So our government can't claim self defense. I also don't think Christ would look too favorably to individuals being killed for crimes they didn't commit.

That's why I was saying pro-lifers aren't really pro life, because they don't seem to care about innocent people being killed. I hear a lot of noise about abortion being wrong, but I don't hear those same people crying about innocent people being killed in an unjust war, or even a just war. I also don't hear them protesting the death of innocent death row inmates. That's the point I was trying to make. I see the differences but I also see similarities.I see your point, but I think you need to change your definition of Pro-life.

Being Pro-Life does not mean Pro-All Life in every case of war, punishment and birth.

Obviously someone can be Pro-Life and support capital punishment and war.

Wars can be just and unjust. We won't know what God thinks about our wars, but I guarantee you that those who are responsible for those decisions will be held accountable.

I think Pro-Life refers to rights of the unborn, physician assisted suicide and against tampering with stem cells. That is what I think of when I hear the term Pro-life.

Blackocrates
09-09-2008, 03:44 PM
Wars can be just and unjust. We won't know what God thinks about our wars, but I guarantee you that those who are responsible for those decisions will be held accountable.



I see your point where the definition of pro-life can differ with others.

I have a question though. With regards to the decision makers being held accountable for going to war. Do you believe that people who voted for Bush the second time will be held responsible as well? I ask this because by that time it was well known that the reason(s) for going to war in Iraq were wrong.

Dolphan7
09-09-2008, 04:00 PM
I see your point where the definition of pro-life can differ with others.

I have a question though. With regards to the decision makers being held accountable for going to war. Do you believe that people who voted for Bush the second time will be held responsible as well? I ask this because by that time it was well known that the reason(s) for going to war in Iraq were wrong.Is every voter to be held accountable for every bad decision a leader of their country makes? Not saying Iraq was a bad decision, or a good one, But if we are to take your question to it's next logical conclusion, wouldn't the german people be accountable for Hitler?

I have no idea how God will look at voting records.

ohall
09-09-2008, 04:35 PM
To be fair, Obama prob regrets attending the Saddleback debate altogether.

That's when things REALLY started go down hill for him in the polls.

Blackocrates
09-09-2008, 04:38 PM
Is every voter to be held accountable for every bad decision a leader of their country makes? Not saying Iraq was a bad decision, or a good one, But if we are to take your question to it's next logical conclusion, wouldn't the german people be accountable for Hitler?

I have no idea how God will look at voting records.

You've twisted it around a bit. I'm not talking about voters being held accountable for every bad decision, I'm talking about knowing of a bad decision and still voting for him. The bad decision came first then the vote.

I'm strictly talking about how by the time the second election came around it was well known about the reason for going to war and how they were false. Voters knew that the Bush lied, and they knew he was going to stay the course. Yet they still voted for him, they weren't ignorant of what was going on with the war. Maybe they'll be held accountable for keeping Bush in office to continue the war.

Blackocrates
09-09-2008, 04:39 PM
To be fair, Obama prob regrets attending the Saddleback debate altogether.

That's when things REALLY started go down hill for him in the polls.

Probably, I don't know why he decided to go there. He had nothing to gain.

Dolphan7
09-09-2008, 04:43 PM
You've twisted it around a bit. I'm not talking about voters being held accountable for every bad decision, I'm talking about knowing of a bad decision and still voting for him. The bad decision came first then the vote.

I'm strictly talking about how by the time the second election came around it was well known about the reason for going to war and how they were false. Voters knew that the Bush lied, and they knew he was going to stay the course. Yet they still voted for him, they weren't ignorant of what was going on with the war. Maybe they'll be held accountable for keeping Bush in office to continue the war.Well...you first have to determine once and far all that it was indeed a bad decision, a mistake. Sorry to say - many Americans don't see it the way you do, so you can't hold them accountable for a bad decision that they in fact don't consider to be a bad decision.

This video proves that there are people who don't consider it to be a mistake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

ohall
09-09-2008, 04:43 PM
Probably, I don't know why he decided to go there. He had nothing to gain.

From what I can remember the talk was because McCain was perceived as to be weak with the religious right there was a good chance for Obama to net some of those voters.

That wouldn't have been my advice to him. Of all the debates he ran away from this is the one he should have kept running from.