" . . . will run with blood."

[Col. Bo Cowshut]

During the 2010 Congressional election speechs, Obama stated that "the street will run with blood!" Last I heard over two-hundred-deaths have been associated with OWS Movement. That number does not include the number of arrest for violence. Coincidence or pre-planning 2012?

[easeltine]

This President is overstepping his boundaries. Even the Supreme Court is going against the government desires in 9-0 decisions. The LIBERALS are even agreeing with the CONSERVATIVES in the Court!

This could be pre-planning by President Obama. Recent statements by George Soros indicate that it is pre-planning on his part.

[easeltine]

President Obama
George Soros
Black Liberation Theology/Reverend Wright - A Liberal Church connected with the Liberal ELCA, Episcopal, Liberal Presbyterian Pro Homosexual Pastors
Chicago Politics
Chicago Organaizer
William Ayers
Saul Alinski
Students For A Democratic Society - Moscow/Marxist Controlled
Chicago Seven
1968 Chicago Democrat National Convention

I think you are on to something!

[easeltine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4

[turtle]

That video is going to far. However Ironically many hope a better change in America, but they forget some changes take years. I think in all truth republicans don't stand a chance, not because Obama the better guy, they have no clue where to go with this new election coming. Making it impossible to evoke change themselves in a new direction. If they step in and do financing has they have before we will go deeper in debt, yet if they stick to what is then economy is not going to change. We might stay level in some ways but in other ways it be far worse. Now with that said. Republicans be better taking what the economy is now and considering what can make it better to increase revenue and funding, as well as job, instead of trying to change the over all budget. Things their party is more in control of. Making price drop and things of this nature. They sell that they might get in.

[easeltine]

Turtle,

In the past I have always voted for Republican mainly for Social Value reasons, (abortion, homosexuality etc.).
This time I have studied the economic, and financial situation of the United States.
I have looked at the graphs of the Federal Budget, National Debt, the Federal Deficit, the Gross National Product vs. Spending, and the Unemployment Rate since the Democrats came into control of the House and Senate in 2007, and President Obama came in office in 2009. I have looked at the two bailouts, TARP, and the Democrat's, (not one Republican went with it in House and Senate), $780 Billion Economic Stimulus DISASTER. I went to 2009, and realized that the increased spending from President Bush was due to Congressional Spending.

IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES WE HAVE NEVER HAD AN ADMINISTRATION SPENDING SO MUCH AND DOING SO POORLY ON THE ECONOMY. WHEN THIS COUNTRY VOTED THE DEMOCRATS TO COME INTO POWER IN 2006 IN CONGRESS, SPEAKER PELOSI, AND SENATOR REID, THESE NUMBERS ARE ALL A DISASTER.

Considering the ideology of George Soros and President Obama, including OWS that Bo brings up, THE VIDEO CLIP IS NOT THAT FAR OFF!

YOU WOULD BE CLOSING YOUR EYES TO VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT AGAIN, ESPECIALLY IF ONE IS ROMAN CATHOLIC!!!

[turtle]

Easeltine, there is a reason to vote democratic and it has nothing to with Catholism, which I really am not and you know it. But a security reason. It is at risk for anyone i power, and that is the crack in our liberty system. Do you realize when President Bush was in power, we almost lost our freedoms of faith. Since the war began our churches and other organization have been under investigation for fear of rebel talk. Now it sound ludricious that it could even happen. However control of organizations in any form is a dangerous. Of course you need watch groups to protect against abuse or even terrorist talk, but the truth is no one can control what one believes or does. All one can hope is groups will teach equality, and equal rights though disagreeing with others. Yet there is always going to be terrorist takes on people different then others.

[Example:It like the gay that got beat up recently in California. What motivated the crowd, was it religion or bigotry, or something unlining that even if you got the group to talk about would not give them legal right to take the law into their own hands, but might of had a personal reason nothing to do with bigotry. I have not read any update to the story since I seen it on the news last night or on web, Can't remember where I seen it. Somethings the camera picks up is the bullies were out of line, but what it does not show is the motive behind the scenes.]

So What I am saying what was the motive of the US for almost causing us to loose our freedoms a few years back, what group was involved. What we need is new political groups and oppositions that are anti terrorist politically, as well as interior antiterrorist action against our civil liberities. President Obama represents change but he does not have the backing of the senate why? I think it has to do with the fact the who controls the house controls the government. Obama can not get republicans to move because they not of his party, they want to do something because there leader is in charge and not the democrates. I hope to see the day when this clash in government will cease. Political agenda's is political agenda, but it should never interfer with democracy of the nation.

Now the economy would of almost crashed no matter who was in power. At least some of the money went to the people and not to big business owners buying golden toilets for thousands of dollars. Yes there is economic problem but the stimulus packages saved many how it did not help the government which has more money then you and I will ever have. Unless you are Bill Gates. Here is the point leaders have a choice to treat all equal or not too. Are what they suggesting equal to all Americans despite whether they are rich, poor or middle class. Money still busy anything no matter the country you are in. America no different in that regard, but without equality money kills innocent and destroy society.

[easeltine]

In California it is now a Hate Crime to say anything against Homosexuality, and that is even from the pulpit.
This is not due to President Bush, rather the LIBERAL ACTIVISTS in this State.
They are denying the Voters their right to choose that Marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is not due to Republican, rather the LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THE MOST LIBERAL COURT IN THE COUNTRY, THAT LEADS IN DECISIONS BEING OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREME COURT. These are Justices that have been appointed by Democrats. Liberals.
In California Homosexuality is a Civil Rights Issue, like Dr. Martin Luther King. That is just a total mockery of the entire Civil Rights issue, a mockery to the African American community, due to LIBERAL GAY ACTIVISIM.
The Federal Government is requiring the Roman Catholic Church to pay for Abortions, by making it mandatory that they be offered in the new Health Care that will be offered, (some call that Obamacare).

The DEMOCRATS vote almost 100% Pro Abortion. Anyone can see that who gets the National Right To Life Newspaper. The DEMOCRATS CONTINUALLY VOTE PRO ABORT!

The REPUBLICANS vote almost 100% Pro Life. Nothing could be more clear than looking at the way Democrats and Republicans vote on these issues.

TARP has almost been paid back, that was the bailout passed in November of 2008. The ECONOMIC RECOVERY PACKAGE, $780Billion Dollars, was the package passed in February of 2009, totally opposed by every Republican, because it was AND is BAD!

President Obama gets everything he wants from the Senate, he will not get what he wants from the House of Representatives, because the Senate is controlled by Democrats, and the House is controlled by Republicans.

Do more research on Graphs Turtle. The Obama Administration is a TOTAL DISASTER when one looks at the ECONOMIC FACTS! The Democrats are a TOTAL DISASTER on MAJOR Social issues for Christians, specifically Abortion and Homosexuality.

[turtle]

Easeltine have you not heard your own state just said marriage was between and a man and a woman. However I look for some people to try and get partnering laws in place which could allow for families of mixed groups to be insured. Plus more then one party could get insured.

However Easeltine are you so crazy to think it is a hate crime for a minister to say they do not agree with homosexuality and that the act of homosexuality is wrong. No it not. it is opinion as well is scripture. So get off your high horse.

[easeltine]

Easeltine have you not heard your own state just said marriage was between and a man and a woman. However I look for some people to try and get partnering laws in place which could allow for families of mixed groups to be insured. Plus more then one party could get insured.

However Easeltine are you so crazy to think it is a hate crime for a minister to say they do not agree with homosexuality and that the act of homosexuality is wrong. No it not. it is opinion as well is scripture. So get off your high horse.

Read what I wrote again, and look up News on the Internet once in a while. Learn something!

[turtle]

Easeltine I know already, so give me a break. I do not know what to think. I known about it about six years. Easeltine, I seen the whole thing. Should I preach or not.

[Col. Bo Cowshut]

What does Obama's speeches have to do with homosexuals in Calopornia?

[turtle]

Col. The problem right wing fundamentalist have with homosexuality, is President Obama takes to loose a stand considering His Christian beliefs. Making him more less Catholic and more something else. However needless to say President Obama and the senate has to make decisions not based on religion but from our ammendment rights. However Homosexuallity has never been truly embraced in America and hopefully never will, but do they have legal rights. They are protected by USA constitution to be treated as equals. Yet they break our marriage laws, but under the freedoms of the first five it part of homosexual beliefs to be as they are. However marriage itself should be one man and one woman. I have not keep up with all Obama or the upcoming runners are saying. I already got opinion of Nick Rommey and few more.

[Col. Bo Cowshut]

Col. The problem right wing fundamentalist have with homosexuality, is President Obama takes to loose a stand considering His Christian beliefs. Making him more less Catholic and more something else. However needless to say President Obama and the senate has to make decisions not based on religion but from our ammendment rights. However Homosexuallity has never been truly embraced in America and hopefully never will, but do they have legal rights. They are protected by USA constitution to be treated as equals. Yet they break our marriage laws, but under the freedoms of the first five it part of homosexual beliefs to be as they are. However marriage itself should be one man and one woman. I have not keep up with all Obama or the upcoming runners are saying. I already got opinion of Nick Rommey and few more.

What does any of that have to do with this thread?

[turtle]

Do you col have any common sense. It has a lot to do with it. With every fight for freedom or change which is represented in gay activism for equal rights people are harmed in someway if not killing usually at least battery. What is sad, is in california had a gay man mauled in the street the other day. However no one ever said why the guys did it. Now that I tied it all together solutions of how to allow gays to have freedom without changing constitutional marrige laws just because they disagree with them. Partnering laws that would cover others living in a household that is not legally binded by marriage but is support by the bread winner of the family which would include a dying aunt with cancer living with a niece or so forth as well as inact with others like gay couples or other life styles of living. Though I disagree with some things, being able to care for aunt, or uncle, cousin under insurance would take care of some legal problems of people with family members that have had this issue, when they qualify not for disability and things.

[easeltine]

"Calopornia"

You have insulted the State of California, the State I live in.

I want an apology! You have been politically incorrect!

[Col. Bo Cowshut]

"Calopornia"

You have insulted the State of California, the State I live in.

I want an apology! You have been politically incorrect!

OPPS!! My bad. You are right that should have been Calipornia. I have no idea where the "o" came from.

[ba2]

...However marriage itself should be one man and one woman...

I personally agree but isn't marriage simply a legal contract? Maybe the fact that it is called "marriage" would let us define it as between a man and woman. But what about a domestic partnership? How can we deny any two people from creating a partnership? My head spins when I think about this too much?

None of this is as simple as it seems.

[turtle]

Ba think of the tax right off that it could create, if you choose to help a friend, or family member to keep the state from doing so, that the state would not have to be burden with. However the state would have to have a law they could not interfer with the freedom of choice of individual to not accept help from anyone other then government.

1.It would cause those that for years have been taught because of government assistance not to help a family member in a crisis. It also would provide for those that fall in the cracks ot help, but it would also could entitle of trading of domestic task that no one can afford to pay for. Let say you have five kids, and you need a babysitter but your job won't allow you to pay for a full time keeper.
a.Now let say you got a proverty striken individual can't hold a job but does not meet other requirements but have the ability to do simple things from child car and run errands, but might not be able to pass all the requirement for working in a daycare center, because they have no teaching skills or have a social skill problem of some sort However to sit and help in the garden, or wash clothes and things would maintain a level of responsibility.

b.Or let say a person is on unemployment gets kick out of their apartment but a family can afford to feed a person, pay for insurance for a time, until they can find work. Or let say several of that person can but no one can stand a person more then a week. Yet the person short term can manage to do several odd jobs needing doing.


Sounds like a form of slavery, and it is in a way, but not really because a contract is between people to protect what they will and will not do. Provision of health is taken care of as well as basics. The problem is people live on the street because they do not qualify for assistance and their families either can help or won't help, either because they think government will, or because they do not realize how affordable extra hand could be on a temporal level or permanent level. Cut the government pay out and if a tax right off that is even for anyone doing it would help.

[turtle]

Some marriage have prenuptials so the difference would be intercourse for procreation in partnering laws and marriage. Partnering laws sex would not be requirement. It would however mean that gays would then be defined by the homosexual act. Mormons would be happy and any other group wanting to practice more then one partner. However the Christian community will have a cow and not a hindu one.