Obama supports aborting his grandchildren

This (the Biden thing) is simply politics. This happens in both parties and every election. It is not news.

However - a poster's sig is not on topic for the thread.

 

Since you are going verbatim by the words, where did he say he wanted her to get an abortion? Fair is fair. If you tell me pro-choice isn't part of his words where did he say he would want her to get an abortion?

I'm not making an excuse which is why the above discussion is of no relevance to me. I was just inputting the pro-choice position and clarifying the legal point that the parents cannot make this decision for the mother (child). What Obama does in his own home is not of consequence to me. As for me and my house, etc...

Secondly, keep in mind that everyone in this world is not spiritual. Everyone AT the Church is not really IN the Church. So yes, your theological argument may stand up for those who are IN the Church. Unfortunately that is not everyone.

My statement was not liberal theology. It was a fact. A gift can be given in one spirit and received another. I spoke about the perceived view of the receiver and not a biblical fact of God. This is not theology or anything to do with the Bible, it is a simple fact of life. Ever know anyone who was unappreciative? What do you think that means?

When everybody loves the Lord and truly lives according to His Word we can see their reactions to His gifts in His Word. Until then, there will be people who do not react according to the Word of God. We call them the unsaved...

 

Hey, not to be funny but Joe Biden said at one of his campaign stops that Sarah Palin was not ready to be VP. Glad he is the absolute word of truth...

 

He isn't running for anything with Palin, not to mention, Obama is running for president, Palin isn't. Can't be compared the same.
I don't know, but, if you reread the op, my signature is not l;ist as part of the topic of this thread. So you and jerry are trying to lead this thread astray. So not to be the one off topic, I will no longer answer questions on this thread about my signature, which has been there for a couple weeks, if you wanted to comment you could have already done it.

 

I'm sure he thinks differently now becasue now he's running for second highest office in the country, but in order to gain that office Obama, the guy not ready for the white house, must win. So of course he would say differently now. Fact is though, he beleives, according to his own statements, that Obama isn't fot for the white house. Personal gain means more then anything else.

 

Bush gave 50-60 million to Planned Parenthood with your tax dollars. You are quilty by association Donna. You gave money to the abortion people.

 

No, Bush didn't give that alone, Congress (both parties) joined with him in doing that. So as far as that goes, we are all guilty by association. Now, please get back on topic and quit derailing this thread just because you don't like the topic.

LE

 

It was a post to show how idiotic some of the views were here. In fact, until I edited it, it showed at the bottom that my post was in fact idiotic. Just like thinking that the Republicans were for us and the democrats were against us. It's a pipe dream to think that the Republicans aren't just doing lip service.

 

You are playing semantics and trying to avoid the issue. Break down his statement and explain what the words he used mean. BHO said, "If one of my daughters made a mistake I would not want her punished with a baby." First, he admits that he has two daughters. Second, he acknowledges that it is possible that one of them could make a mistake and end up pregnant. Third, he admits because it could be possible for one of his daughters get pregnant by mistake that he does not want them to be punished with a child. This means that he wants her be able to not have to go through with giving birth to the "mistake." How can that mean anything other than aborting the child?

But none of that pro-choice mumbo jumbo has anything to do with what BHO actually said. You can try to cover for him all you want. All I ask is that you admit it when you are doing it while at the same time rejecting the truth of God's word.

So you believe that God's word is only valid for those that are "IN the Church." If that is the case do you bother to preach God's word to the lost?

Your "fact" here is played out by you allowing the authority of personal experience to trump the authority of God's word. That is classic liberal Theology. You are filtering God's word through the sieve of personal experience; rather than, filtering the personal experience through the sieve of God's word.

Correct, but their reaction to God's gift does not determine the reality of God's gift. The fact that some lost people find the fact that God's gift of Christ's death on the cross and subsequent resurrection offensive in no way makes Christ's sacrifice and resurrection any less effective for the salvation of the lost and the provision of eternal life.

 

Again I ask, your proof is,,,, what? If your going to make statements like this you ahve to provide proof or no one is going to beleive anything you say.

 

know all about idiotic views, keep seeing them, quite a few by you.

 

http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine050208.htm Really, all I have to provide them is once, but I'll help you out this one time.

 

Well??????

 

The liberals in Congress get stuff like this passed by attaching it to massive appropriations bills. If President Bush had vetoed the entire bill he would have shut the government down. Likewise, I don't know but did this massive appropriations bill also contain funding for our armed forces in the field fighting a war? If so, as Commander-in-Chief how could he use his veto on this bill and cut our military off at the knees?

I am not saying it is was the right thing to do. I am just say what happened. If the President had the line item veto we would not have this type of junk happening.

 

If this is true it doesnt matter what it was attached to. It should have been vetoed.

 

The idea that Bush hasn't done enough about abortion and we should therefore vote for someone who openly proclaims his intent to make abortion more accessible is, in the most charitable view, misguided. It is hard to imagine that anyone actually thinks that way, but we see it here time and time again (at least professed thinking that way). It is foolishness the likes of which has rarely been seen in American politics (and that is saying a lot because the bar of foolishness in American politics is absurdly high).

Bush hasn't done enough about abortion, but given the current legislative standpoint, what else could he do? He appointed conservative justices to the Supreme Court.

This election, as I have often said, comes down mainly to the Supreme Court. America will recover from whatever fiscal policies either of these bozos enact. America will continue the current path in Iraq with either of them. American domestic policy will be more liberal under Obama, and slightly less liberal under McCain, but not substantially different. The budget will continue to do what it has always done. But the next president will have the power to shape SCOTUS for a generation. Do you want that in the hands of Obama? You know what we will get with him ... another Bryer, Ginsberg, Stevens. With McCain there is a chance of getting something better.

Before you start with the stupid argument that Roe was a Republican court and all that nonsense, move your hands away from the keyboard and think before you type. There are no guarantees with justices, but rarely does a liberal appointee turn out conservative. In fact, has it ever happened? I don't recall it.

We need a good dose of common sense for the sake of the country.

 

When it was done it was done with a Republican majority, I think.

 

It was done in 2005. The Republican majority does not mean that the liberals can't get something attahed to a massive appropriations bill. Just like a Democratic majority now does not mean that conservatives can't get something attached to a massive appropriations bill. In fact this seems to be the way the Congress likes to work. They put off taking action on spending issues until the last possilbe moment. Then they all get together and create a massive appropriations bill with so much junk attached to it that none of them actually knows everything that is in the bill.

 

If you would take the time Bible Boy, you would see links I posted and backed up on my position of the 50-60 million dollar stuff. The links provided show that the Title X fund cannot be used for abortions.

 

So what you are saying is that while President Bush signed legislation that provided federal funding to Planned Parenthood, said funding, by law, can not be used for abortions. Is that correct? If so, why are you attempting to argue that President Bush funded abortion?