posted November 11, 2012 02:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
You can't trust any politician. It's just a matter of which one is best fit for the job who will do the least amount of damage. Romney was a good fit to fix the economy. Obama spent us into near oblivion. Thankfully, Obamacare has enough loopholes in it that we can avert disaster by nullification of it in practice; however, there will be plenty of casualties as it will still wreak havoc on the middle class and those wage-earners who live paycheck to paycheck, because their paychecks will be smaller. It was sold as insurance for everyone, but all it will do is knock us further down the economic cliff.

---

You're right that no politician can be trusted. However, I took a pretty hard look at Romney and his policies. His history did not impress me. If Obama has the blood of many on his hands, then Romney has the livelihood of many on his hands. People he laid off before and during his time at Bain Capital, so that he and 3 of his buddies could personally make millions for themselves. One of his partners in crime himself admitted (in a Frontline interview) that their venture was not to create jobs for people. It was to make money for their investors (which of course included them as well).

Imo someone who became a multimillionaire by completely taking away the paychecks of hundreds of employees from different companies, does not deserve to be given so much power that he can have a free pass at doing the same thing again.

As for his policies, I did not think he had the welfare of women in mind since he seemed out of touch with what today's woman wants. His assertion that he would overturn Roe v Wade was also scary.

There are many other things about Romney's policies I did not like, but there's no point going there as that is not the purpose of this thread.

Perhaps the only thing I liked about him is that he's very much a family man and appears to love his wife very much.

As for Ron Paul, even if he did stand a chance, who's to say he wouldn't have succumbed to pressure and changed once in power, as power seems to have this corrupting effect on most people. And if by chance he stood his ground and didn't change, who's to say Washington wouldn't have pushed him out as they obviously don't like someone who doesn't cater to their special interests.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

Only time can tell what will happen in future. We could keep arguing in this forum and saying "you're wrong," "no, you're wrong" without the circular arguments making any difference to what is happening in real life.

Thanks for responding to my questions It was nice to be able to speak with you in here. If this forum doesn't get continually ensnared in uncivility, I'd like to stick around. Otherwise, I'll make myself scarce.

posted November 11, 2012 02:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I actually find sarcasm to be a very effective method of comunication. Face it, not everyone worships at the feet of Obama. Get over it. I know you find it just absolutely perplexing that there can be people who don't agree with you that Obama hangs the Moon each night, but yeah, we exist.

---

Actually I don't worship at the feet of Obama. That is a misunderstanding and wrong assumption you seemed to have developed about me.

And I absolutely do not mind nor am I perplexed that others do not like Obama, since I'm not trying to convert anyone. I usually don't spend my time trying to convert others to my way of thinking, as that can be manipulative. My preferred method is to supply information, if I can, on any topic, and let others make up their own mind. And I expect others to do the same toward me.

I disagree that derisive sarcasm is an effective tool of communication. You were also sarcastic with me and I didn't mind that at all. In fact I found it funny and showed that in my earlier post. However, I do not care for derision and find it very disrespectful.

I do not see you using derision while communicating with others. So obviously you must also think so.

posted November 11, 2012 03:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
By choosing Obama, Americans have said no to WW3. This automatically makes America a Great Nation in terms of Global Responsibility.

Drone Attacks will stop in less than 12 months, just watch and keep an eye on Imran Khan [praying the Taliban do not finish him]. Keep an eye on Rahul Gandhi in India who arranged a huge strategy meet 2 days after Obama's win. And China is changing for the better, the moment Obama victory news came. Putin sacked two corrupt defense chiefs just now.
CIA chief David Petreaus has resigned under a cover story of an affair. How many more signs are needed that a weeding process has started ?
The corrupt members of the global military and finance bigwigs were hoping to cash in on a GOP win by creating a huge World War but a Shift in Consciousness Occurred the moment Obama won.
In the coming weeks, there might be actin against the Fat Cats who paid tons to Romney so that they could start speculating with Taxpayer funds all over again.

Overall, it is not just about Obama, it is an equal credit to every single voter of his.
Think of their thought process when they voted for him. They did not want to be looked down upon by an elitist, rich, old white male clan.
They have been abused by this deplorable right wing types. So they voted for fairness.
They voted for freedom from being looked down upon. Freedom from Arrogant Views. Freedom from fear of losing everything in a bad time.
Women voted for their self respect.
Any Obama Voter [who is not a politician ] just cannot be a bad human being.

Edit: Those who are uncomfortable at my writing something nice about Obama, take a look in this forum. More than 1000 hate filled posts against him. Think if his children were reading here, and their dad is called "O Bomber" un-apologetically. How would you feel if your dad was vilified even when he has not curbed anyone's freedom of speech in abusing him? In India, one personal insult tweet against a Minister's son led to an arrest. Look at how much greater your country is, and how can the leader of this country popularly elected TWICE be evil?

The most gracious thing to do is to heartily congratulate this winner.

We have allowed 1000+ nasty posts with personal animosity against a man democratically elected by what is still the world's number one country. It is the right action to balance with posts of the objectively verifiable good potential of Obama.

---

posted November 11, 2012 04:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by NativelyJoan:
I was reading over this thread and noticed I missed this post. I think you're doing a wonderful job of balancing out all the negativity with positivity here IQ. President Obama is going to need our support most definitely. Positive energy and uplifting vibes are the least we can offer him and our fellow citizens. It's time to unite and ride these waves of change together.

---

Really? Even after getting some sleep I can't understand what she's saying or where she'd getting her info on how the CIA chief is quitting over drones or that Obama will stop drones in the next 12 months (among other things asserted). Can you explain it so that I at least understand what's being said, or is this a total leap of faith thing?

posted November 11, 2012 05:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Really? Even after getting some sleep I can't understand what she's saying or where she'd getting her info on how the CIA chief is quitting over drones or that Obama will stop drones in the next 12 months (among other things asserted). Can you explain it so that I at least understand what's being said, or is this a total leap of faith thing?

Btw, you get bonus points if you can explain her assertions about Decepticons (or whatever) from Transformers being behind the drone attacks and why Obama can't say outright what's happening (and similar assertions).

---

I'll do my best and answer from what I know. And don't worry it's not a leap of faith, there's more intel here then at first glance appears evident. At the moment though, sleep calls so I'll get back to you on this later. For now, maybe try rereading what IQ wrote and try to get a sense of what he's trying to explain, and under lying themes within his rhetoric. For example with what's going on with David Petraeus. His resignation had nothing to do with morality because of an affair, it's a blatant cover up (Libya). And the mainstream media is relentlessly painting it as such. Who owns these media conglomerates that control the MSM? The powers that be. The betrayals and hidden truths are now rising to the surface for all to see and everyone involved is trying to save their own backsides. Like IQ's already mentioned, it's no coincidence that these occurrences are happening just days after Obama's reelection. More is happening behind the scenes then meets the eye, but the truth will continue to reveal itself. The public is becoming more knowledgeable. The change has already taken place and will continue to do so.

posted November 11, 2012 08:37 AM            

I'm sorry. You're right, I shouldn't have been laughing about your belief that the President reads our letters.

My other post, quoting an imaginary letter to Obama, was not entirely sarcastic, though. (And for what it's worth, I don't think sarcasm always means disrespect, if it's in the context of an otherwise friendly interaction or if we are on good terms with each other. But that's just how I allow latitude for others; granted, you may be different.) Anyway, if I were to write to the President that is EXACTLY what I wanted to say.

To me, there is egotism involved in thinking that my letter even matters. I think Obama's PR people appeal to our egos deliberately when they say, "We listen to YOU, we hear you!" And I distrust that. Plus, the anti-drone rhetoric has been laid out in more compelling terms by people a lot more visible, influential, and intelligent than I am. But the President won't bend.

I didn't mean to disrespect YOU, but I don't respect the idea that Obama cares. And that myth was the target of my derision, because I am defiant against being manipulated like that.

posted November 11, 2012 09:11 AM            

I don`t care if Obama is from Sirius or has amphibian royal blood. IF he can get the job done of righting this Country then Hallelujah, lets get a move on Mr. President. Gather your happy people and get busy.

posted November 11, 2012 09:23 AM            

Oprah Winfrey's all-time favorite quote: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

I believe that Obama is a fraud.

I haven't much optimism about him making a radical transformation into something more genuine; that rebirth seems to me about as likely to happen as for Glenn Beck to become a vocal liberal or for Mitt Romney to renounce his riches and live a humble life.

Why have optimism about this kind of thing? I can WISH for it and send energy that tends toward that, but realism prevents me from the kind of "optimism" that is really a misnomer because it is in fact no less than an expectation of miracles.

posted November 11, 2012 10:04 AM            

Our Inner Divinity is so powerful that it can collectively affect the leadership.

Post 21st December 2012, this Human Power will start increasing, hence my concern that we stay positive about Obama's 2nd Innings. It will definitely help him avoid goof ups.

You are a Realized Being Brother Randall, your vibrations will have serious effect. They can help Obama prevent serious errors going into Jan 3rd 2013, which is one of the biggest tests, and will decide his legacy.

@Faith: I understand the realism but when optimism seems unrealistic, neutrality is the sensible option. Metaphysically, what part of you has attracted a situation wherein a man you consider to be fraud becomes your country's President, especially when you are not a fraud? Can your staying non-judgmental eliminate his tendency to do what you think is fraud? All sentient beings affect one another. You can actually contribute your part to changing that which you think is negative about Obama. Again, I would not be writing this in the 19th century but we are heading into a timeline where collective thought manifestation is going to speed up.

@PixieJane: I am a Conspiracy Theory Afficionado. In this line of thinking, "official excuses" are always lies.
David Petreaus could have enjoyed dozens of gals in his life but wants to quit over one affair?! There is documented evidence that he is the Drone "Booster". And he is on his way out so fast after Obama's re-election. Surely you do not believe that he slept with his biographer on Nov 8th and he announced his resignation next morning?
'Conspiracy Theorists' Fact is that Obama was scared of touching him as he too did not know exactly which way the election would go. Now that he has won, he is kicking David's ass. If David denied the affair, his photos with some European bombshell would have appeared "mysteriously". If he still held on to the chair, the usual method is a car accident/single engine plane crash etc.

posted November 11, 2012 10:16 AM            

There's an expression that goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

I never believed in Obama, but I realize that the media circus around him in 2008 caused a lot of people to think he was going to change a lot. When, in fact, he continued with the Bush Doctrine, failed to punish war crimes, and disappointed his supporters across the spectrum, he left a LOT of people disenchanted. They are vocal about this on the internet.

I think realistic disenchantment is a better foundation for growth than a persistent refusal to acknowledge problems. So the people who are still naive about Obama in 2012, after he's clearly shown his loyalties and lawlessness, do seem willfully blind, to me. Especially when so many of their fellow 2008 supporters have felt the need to step off the bandwagon heavy-heartedly.

posted November 11, 2012 10:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:

@Faith: I understand the realism but when optimism seems unrealistic, neutrality is the sensible option. Metaphysically, what part of you has attracted a situation wherein a man you consider to be fraud becomes your country's President, especially when you are not a fraud? Can your staying non-judgmental eliminate his tendency to do what you think is fraud? All sentient beings affect one another. You can actually contribute your part to changing that which you think is negative about Obama. Again, I would not be writing this in the 19th century but we are heading into a timeline where collective thought manifestation is going to speed up.

---

Hi iQ,

Theoretical question:

What if everything you wrote above pertained to Adolf Hitler, would your advice be the same? "Think positive"? Would you say that by being negative about Hitler I was contributing to the problem, and would you ask me to consider my placement under his tyranny in metaphysical terms, to guide me away from making more concrete arguments?

These wars are serious enough to me that I feel the need to continually make an issue of the President's part in the atrocities.

I won't gloss over that.

posted November 11, 2012 10:47 AM            

But something u say:
I never believed in Obama, but I realize that the media circus around him in 2008 caused a lot of people to think he was going to change a lot. When, in fact, he continued with the Bush Doctrine, failed to punish war crimes, and disappointed his supporters across the spectrum, he left a LOT of people disenchanted. They are vocal about this on the internet.

posted November 11, 2012 10:59 AM            

Yes, I believe these wars are based on lies, they are mainly about oil, other natural resources (some call Afghanistan "Pipelineistan" and I think that highlights a serious point), profiting the miltary industrial complex, and advancing a geopolitical strategy that tends towards global enslavement and total surveillance. THIS is what it's all about to me, it's not about "fighting terrorism."

Therefore, people are dying because of lies. That bothers me personally. I am a Pisces moon and the war footage I've seen is so disturbing, I can't sleep. It gets in the way of my personal relationships because I find myself heartbroken that my friends have such a cavalier attitude about people dying, and I lament that my communication skills are insufficient to penetrate into their minds and force them to see what I see. And that list can go on and on.

As for your second question, I have no idea why the people who support the Bush Doctrine take issue with Obama's foreign policy, I haven't lingered in this forum enough to become familiar with their arguments.

Some Republicans just want more wars and feel that Obama is leaving us vulnerable by not policing the world more extensively. In other words, they want to see more escalation.

But I think these people haven't done enough research into the real nature of the problems.

posted November 11, 2012 11:05 AM            

quote:

---

Yes, I believe these wars are based on lies, they are mainly about oil, other natural resources (some call Afghanistan "Pipelineistan" and I think that highlights a serious point), profiting the miltary industrial complex, and advancing a geopolitical strategy that tends towards global enslavement and total surveillance than "fighting terrorism."

---

well that is view we share.

Regarding bush supporters that became automatically obama's ennemies, it show the problems with partisan attitude, and the problem with republican policies.

Their inability to implement these policies for the next 4 years is enough for me to rejoice and be grateful to those who allowed that to happen.

posted November 11, 2012 11:55 AM            

quote:

---

Unfortunately it works both ways, so that Democrats who fought against the Bush Doctrine under Bush have become lax or mute when the same policies and actions are carried out under the banner of Liberalism.

---

I disagree. Bush started wars, and these endeavors have proven difficult to remove ourselves from at least from the perspective of wanting to do so responsibly. I personally would love the Guantanamo prison to be shut down, but it's proven such a legal and political conundrum, Obama's found himself powerless, though he initially did make proposals to get the ball rolling. We don't know what long term strategy has come from his experience in dealing with situations like that.

If you're up on your current policy affairs on the Middle East, you'd know that Obama's position is that many countries are interested in having a free, democratic society.

This article is from the right-leaning Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324073504578104980233623890.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

This article speaks to the restraint he's already given in considering war or elevating military action in the region. It's FoxNews, so it's pro-military action. They did misspeak in: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/08/will-middle-east-derail-obamas-agenda/

Here's one of your NeoCons talking about how sanctions are the best course, and that they are working: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/09/former-white-house-middle-east-adviser-obama-would-absolutely-use-force-against-iran-if-diplomacy-fails/

Last year's Arab Spring uprisings toppled more Middle Eastern autocrats than Bush, with the United States largely staying on the sidelines or playing a supportive role. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-usa-campaign-mideast-reaction-idUSBRE8A61KW20121107

Revolution is happening in the Middle East. Thus far, Obama has tried to be on the side of the common people there.

I think there's a misunderstanding on your part of what the big picture entails. It's false to assume that an Obama supporter knows less than you do about foreign policy when you seem to take issue with just one aspect.

With regard to drone strikes, iQ is right, Petraeus had a huge hand in how things were undertaken:

posted November 11, 2012 12:50 PM            

About Hitler, he was not popularly elected and the majority of Germany KEPT QUIET because only the Jews were being attacked. They did not send positive energy, instead they were subjugated by fear and sent fear based energy which strengthened the Reverse Swastika Archetype, and allowed a human sacrifice of epic proportions.

It is thus illogical to compare Obama and a Hitler in the early stages of Nazism. In fact, there is evidence of the Bush Family supporting the Nazis. Prescott Bush made money tainted with blood, and it is that wealth which created the wealth of the Bush Family.

You wanted a link from me and presto, you have manifested it http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

posted November 11, 2012 01:58 PM            

If you're copacetic with Obama's foreign policy, good for you.

Strange that I request a link from iQ and it's assumed I want links non-stop and want to participate in Link Wars with everyone? I don't. I'm not Jwhop, nor am I his substitute or wing man. I think it's a HUGE waste of time constructing lessons for people who've demonstrated no interest in learning from them.

So, in light of our past discussions, I believe it's pointless to supply links to you, AG. You disagree with my foundational assumptions and philosophies and have already dismissed my line of thinking as merely "conspiratorial." On the contrary, I am satisfied with the caliber of my information sources and have nothing to prove to you. There is no sense going around the merry-go-round with you again.

Thanks, though, for the REQUESTED link on Petraeus. Appreciated.

Anyway, just for the record, as I've already made clear in previous discussions, I believe the neocons had a laundry list of countries to invade, topple, and overthrow, and I suspect that we are systematically working to accomplish that in those countries. As I've already said, Obama's invasion of Libya was flagrantly illegal, but predictable all things considered, and what you call "playing a supportive role" in the toppling of Middle Eastern autocrats is, to me, just more unwanted meddling in countries, with a high probability of backfiring either now or eventually. I am a non-interventionist.

Why did Gadhafi have to go anyway?
Maybe because.... http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/World_News_3/article_7886.shtml

^ In case anyone else might be interested- I know you probably aren't, AG. It's just something to think about, a new angle to pursue if you are accustomed to looking at things in OIL terms.

But if you think Obama's actions through the Arab Spring have been excellent, FINE, that's your opinion.

We are both Capricorns, do you think either of us will budge?

I believe the sanctions on Iran are inhumane, sanctions are usually deadly, not sure what your point is there. I am just as appalled at death by starvation as death by drones or bombs.

I guess you aren't. *shrug* I can't change you and won't waste time trying.

posted November 11, 2012 02:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:

About Hitler, he was not popularly elected and the majority of Germany KEPT QUIET because only the Jews were being attacked. They did not send positive energy, instead they were subjugated by fear and sent fear based energy which strengthened the Reverse Swastika Archetype, and allowed a human sacrifice of epic proportions.

It is thus illogical to compare Obama and a Hitler in the early stages of Nazism.

---

It's mainly Muslims who are suffering under Obama's rule, just as it was mainly Jews who suffered under Hitler. In both instances, dehumanization has been accomplished (for the Jews, now the Muslims) so that their genocide can be looked upon apathetically.

Also, just as the net widened under Hitler to include more and more categories of people slated for annihilation, the definition of "terrorist" is increasingly vague, to allow for more behaviors or actions to be labeled "terrorist" and treated accordingly. The terrorist watch lists are not unlike the Jews wearing their yellow stars. Something is bound to happen to the people on those lists, eventually: preventive detention is a scary possibility, yet the Obama administration has made great strides toward implementing it on a very broad scale (America is now a "battlefield.")

It's worth getting upset about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
In fact, there is evidence of the Bush Family supporting the Nazis.

---

posted November 11, 2012 02:32 PM            

quote:

---

We are both Capricorns, do you think either of us will budge?

---

You seem to crumble every time you're criticized or judged in any way, so, in a way, yes.

I didn't provide links because I want a link war with you. I provided links because I know different things than you do, and if I can head you in the direction of understanding, perhaps there's some hope that you'll take a more moderate view of things.

quote:

---

I believe the sanctions on Iran are inhumane, sanctions are usually deadly, not sure what your point is there.

---

My point is two-fold. One, it's not war, which is even more deadly. Two, I think that's one of your NeoCon guys advocating this non-war action.

quote:

---

I am just as appalled at death by starvation as death by drones or bombs.

I guess you aren't. *shrug* I can't change you and won't waste time trying.

---