Obama Will Sign Spending Bill Despite Earmarks

[targus]

All Christians are not as concerned with abortion as your are.

Apparently - a deeply deeply sad thing isn't it though?

But I can't help but wonder - how can a Chrisitian possibly not be concerned about abortion?

 

[targus]

Someone who repents of their sin and trust the Lord Jesus Christ and his finished work on the cross.

What's yours?

Do you consider abortion to be a sin?

Is it a sin to encourage another or to help another to sin?

Is it a sin to vote in favor of government funding for sin?

 

[Joshua Rhodes]

This must be bribe for future votes since we know he didn't didn't owe them for the stimulus plan. I think we'll now see bipartisanship in action.

Stressing mine.

Bipartisanship: both parties working for themselves, against the good of the American people.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Post the link. I have found a long list of pork that was included in the Bush bailout bill. Maybe that's what you're thinking about.

Do I have to do everything for you? It's no wonder you're a liberal ...

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=57471

You even made the first comment on it.

 

[rbell]

All Christians are not as concerned with abortion as your are.

Replace the word "abortion" with "civil rights" and you would have a conniption sufficient to cough up your skull and pass your kidney through your urethra. and that would be an appropriate response.

My point: There are some things that all Christians should be exceedingly concerned about.

[/off topic]

 

[Andy T.]

All Christians are not as concerned with abortion as your are.

Yes, I realize there are disobedient, worldly, secular-thinking, selfish Christians out there.

 

[rbell]

Back to topic...

Here's another side of bacon: SOURCE.

$280,000 for a University of Maryland initiative to study alternative uses for tobacco to help farmers compensate for the drop-off in smoking.

But remember...there's no pork in this bill.

Also remember, hardworking Americans...there are millions of people in this country that "need" your money more than you do. And Government is going to attmept to get it, and give it to those that "need" it.

 

[rbell]

More for those convinced this is a kosher budget (free of pork):

Try on NINE THOUSAND earmarks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123592142217703383.html

Also, Obama has reneged on his "no more politics as usual" promise...from the article:

Congress follows special rules for approving the annual budget that make it hard for the minority party to block it. Senate rules requiring 60 votes to end debate are suspended.

 

[carpro]

President Barack Obama will break a campaign pledge and sign a budget bill laden with millions in lawmakers' pet projects, administration officials said.

Administration budget chief Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel both downplayed the $410 billion spending bill and signaled Obama would hold his nose and sign it. Orszag said: "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward.

Said Emanuel: "That's last year's business."

The House last week passed the measure that would keep the government running through Sept. 30, when the federal budget year ends. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 specially sponsored projects totaling $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion.


More Here

Just another one of Obama's lies.

Despite democrat denials, his non'stimulating "stimulus" package was loaded with pork .

No reason to think that practise wouldn't continue.

 

[JustChristian]

And he is doing nothing about it, which most of us knew going in that he wouldn't do anything about it.

They have done things about it, and you can be assured the the SCOTUS nominees would have been different. You didn't vote for life by voting for Obama.

Do you want him to pull out of Iraq next week? Somehow I haven't gotten that from your previous posts. BTW the recent Wall Street Journal poll shows 80% support for the President's position on Iraq.

 

[JustChristian]

Do you consider abortion to be a sin?

Is it a sin to encourage another or to help another to sin?

Is it a sin to vote in favor of government funding for sin?

Is it a sin for a Christian to vote for a party that wants to continually go to war and kill hundreds of thousands of human beings? In addition that party supports keeping America as the supreme ruler of the world. To spend more on its military than the rest of the world combined! Should Christians war mongers?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Do you want him to pull out of Iraq next week? Somehow I haven't gotten that from your previous posts. BTW the recent Wall Street Journal poll shows 80% support for the President's position on Iraq.

He continued the Bush position, which is fine with me. Many of us knew that and didn't buy into the campaign hype that some of you did.

Bush's position for years has been a responsible withdrawal in agreement with the Iraqis.

 

[JustChristian]

He continued the Bush position, which is fine with me. Many of us knew that and didn't buy into the campaign hype that some of you did.

Bush's position for years has been a responsible withdrawal in agreement with the Iraqis.

No he didn't. Obama stated that we would pull out in 18 months. If a Republican were still president we would be there for the foreseeable future. I believe Bush last said that we would be there for at least 10 years.

 

[Andy T.]

Is it a sin for a Christian to vote for a party that wants to continually go to war and kill hundreds of thousands of human beings? In addition that party supports keeping America as the supreme ruler of the world. To spend more on its military than the rest of the world combined! Should Christians war mongers?

So do you believe this? You must, because I've seen you repeat it many times on this forum. Since you believe this, is not your vote for the party that supports abortion just as much of a sin? Essentially what you have said is that anyone who voted Democrat or Republican has sinned. And doesn't that include you?

 

[LeBuick]

Stressing mine.

Bipartisanship: both parties working for themselves, against the good of the American people.

That sizes it up just about right... According to this article, Republican's will need to focus more because the Dems are out spending them. Of course, the Republican has more earmarks for less money so I guess we can call him conservative...

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/17453

Leading the list was Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia. For years, he’s been known as a "king of pork" for the amount of largesse he’s distributed to his state over the half century he’s been in the Senate. He has 60 earmarks in the bill, worth $123 milliion.

Behind him was Republican Sen Richard Shelby of Alabama, with 64 earmarks in the bill, more than $114 million.

 

[JustChristian]

So do you believe this? You must, because I've seen you repeat it many times on this forum. Since you believe this, is not your vote for the party that supports abortion just as much of a sin? Essentially what you have said is that anyone who voted Democrat or Republican has sinned. And doesn't that include you?

I've also said that the Republicans are only using abortion as a way to keep evangelical Christians voting for them. The say the appropriate words but do little or nothing. During Bush's administration he had control of all three branches of the government for six out of the eight years and was only down by one vote in the Senate for the other two years. Eight years of Republican control of the Federal government. What changed? Very little. The late tern abortion bill was passed but that only impacts about 0.03 % of the total abortions. Then he strengthened protection of the rights of health care professionals late in Dec. of 2008. The rule didn't take effect until Obama was president. That doesn't show a strong anti-abortion program now does it?

If you look back at George HW Bush and Reagan they also did almost nothing. I basically hate the hypocrisy of the Republican party on this issue.

 

[Revmitchell]

I've also said that the Republicans are only using abortion as a way to keep evangelical Christians voting for them.

And you are incorrect every time you say it. It has been debunked on this board.

 

[Andy T.]

I've also said that the Republicans are only using abortion as a way to keep evangelical Christians voting for them. The say the appropriate words but do little or nothing. During Bush's administration he had control of all three branches of the government for six out of the eight years and was only down by one vote in the Senate for the other two years. Eight years of Republican control of the Federal government. What changed? Very little. The late tern abortion bill was passed but that only impacts about 0.03 % of the total abortions. Then he strengthened protection of the rights of health care professionals late in Dec. of 2008. The rule didn't take effect until Obama was president. That doesn't show a strong anti-abortion program now does it?

If you look back at George HW Bush and Reagan they also did almost nothing. I basically hate the hypocrisy of the Republican party on this issue.

You didn't answer my question or address the point of my post. Even if I grant your premise that the Republicans have been complete hypocrites on abortion, does that make it right for you to vote for a pro-abortion Democrat? Your twisted line of thinking seems to be: One party says they are against abortion, but they really aren't; while the other party is for abortion and they make no qualms about it, so I'm going to support the latter. So if your choice is between an honest killer or a dishonest killer, you might as well take the honest killer. I would respect your position if you said a pox to both of them and went 3rd party. But as it stands right now, you really have no moral authority on this issue whatsoever.

 

[LeBuick]

I've also said that the Republicans are only using abortion as a way to keep evangelical Christians voting for them..

Looks like they use the principles of conservatives as bait also. According to this article earmarks quadruples when the Republican's were in charge. It appears they speak pro-life and small government then do the opposite after the polls close.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303931.html?hpid=topnews

The overall number of earmarks, which quadrupled under Republican rule from 1995 to 2007, has fallen in the last two years.

 

[dragonfly]

And you are incorrect every time you say it. It has been debunked on this board.

No sir! It may have been debunked in your mind, but that's all.