posted November 10, 2012 07:32 PM            

It's the people who are pressing for social reform, and I don't even think there is anything to be especially proud of with that. Americans are still infighting and lacking even a modicum of respect for each other.

So we might have gay marriage but more virulent hatred towards Christian conservatives. Why? Can't people choose to be religious anymore without vitriol being directed at them?

I take issue with Obama, and don't think the praise for him is deserved, but the people themselves, I am fine with.

What I like is an atmosphere of respect.

posted November 10, 2012 07:54 PM            

But there are some Christian conservatives, rare as they seem to be to me, who understand what actual liberty is and that we live under a Constitution and not the Bible, and I don't have a problem with them or their religion. One such example is Ron Paul. I hear Ron Paul won't even let gays use his bathroom and while that strikes me as very silly he also promotes the idea of liberty over religion (and thus opposed prop 8 banning gay marriage in CA because he stuck to his principle that a majority doesn't have the right to vote away the rights of a minority and that this is a land where adults should enter into any kind of mutual contract, including marriage, that they like) and so I respect his beliefs because he respects everyone else as well rather than thinking his beliefs are so special that the rest of us must be forced to live by them. Or as Ron Paul and I would both say on that issue:

If they want respect, then they should show respect. If they don't, then don't complain when others treat them with the very same contempt. Heck, that's not just karma, that's the Golden Rule, and IIRC the Bible says judge and be judged.

posted November 10, 2012 08:35 PM            

Real Christians know that, but there does seem to be a shortage of them.

What I don't like seeing are sweeping comments against Republicans or Christians that really dig deep and are hateful. Just because it looks like the person making the comment is unaware of their own bigotry issues.

I try and think of people as individuals, not in collective terms so much. So it bothers me especially that the language in this forum can be so war-like, on the basis of a kind of primitive us versus them mentality.

Whereas in real life, liberals and conservatives, and those of us who are neither, often get along fine.

posted November 10, 2012 08:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
So we might have gay marriage but more virulent hatred towards Christian conservatives. Why? Can't people choose to be religious anymore without vitriol being directed at them?

---

I agree with both you and Pixie Jane about respect, it's fundamental within any community, culture, nation or group for those members to respect one another in order to be successful. We can't grow, if we can't respect and accept each other. But America has had a very tumultuous history. Instead of openly giving respect to others, we've used our differences to be a catalyst for division. There is an imbalance and there has always been an imbalance within how American's have treated one another since the founding fathers. When will this change? I don't know. But I think we're moving closer. We have to move past our differences, and not allow the powers that be the ability to divide us, which they've succeed with doing for centuries, through religion, politics and so many other avenues. It's so ironic because I think the majority hopes for the same outcome, but we antagonize one another and pin ourselves against each other instead of working together and celebrating our unique differences. As time goes by, and everyone adjusts to the changes occurring within this country, I think respecting each other might become easier because we will hopefully no longer have such disdain for those who believe in things or follow religions that we don't. I actually think it's much easier to show respect for another then it is to accept them.

posted November 11, 2012 01:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
^ Now that you mention all that, I don't like him either!

---

On the other thread you seemed laughingly surprised that I believed a tidbit shared by Michelle Obama regarding her husband.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/001519-3.html

And you very pointedly asked iQ to quote/give links for his information.

Yet here you are seemingly easily "buying" into what Randall said without asking him to cite any source of information.

Differing standards for different people???

posted November 11, 2012 02:10 AM            

Did not Obama sign the idefinite detainment provision?

Name some of the millions of jobs Obama created. That's why unemployment stayed above 9 percent until a month before the debates, right? His green energy companies were supposed to do so. FAIL.

Name the tax cuts (plural) Obama created. I can think of one, but it isn't really a cut; nor was it his idea.

Bush's long-range goal with Iraq is common knowledge.

Obama said from his own lips that he modeled his health care plan from Romney's.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Most companies will now cut hours of every employee to under 30 per week to avoid Obamacare. No more full-time jobs, and no more overtime wages. That will NOT give insurance to every American. It will also cripple the working class in what is already a slow economy. And if he cared about what the people wanted, he would not have signed into law the indefinite detainment provision. He would have let it pass without him, if it had enough votes to do so. Signing it and then saying he objects is a lot like someone pointing a gun at your head and saying, "I really don't approve of this" as the trigger is pulled and your brain matter splatters the wall behind you. Created new jobs? LIES! Cut taxes? LIES! REDUCED government spending? He has spent more than all other presidents combined! Quadrupled energy investments? No, he gave billions to his campaign supporters via investment in their companies, most of which flopped! Just because something is typed up next to a picture of Obama doesn't make it true. And, BTW, Obama followed Bush's plan for leaving Iraq. Obama hasn't had an original idea of his own in four years. Even Obamacare was jacked from Romney's plan.

---

posted November 11, 2012 03:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Papa John's was in the news today saying all employees will be cut to 30 hours per week. You can bet many large companies will follow suit. They will also lay people off.

---

Oh those companies, like Papa Johns, threatening job and hour cuts and putting the blame on Obama's reelection because their classy CEO's can't seem to manage their businesses. With a evolving marketplace, growing economy and secure health system, it's just too much for these CEO's to handle these changes. Class acts, really. Adding to the unemployment figures unnecessarily out of greed or just plain spite because they're man Mitt lost the election. Wow, some classy CEO's aren't they. Greed and spite over humanity. Talk about having compassion for the middle class? Sabotaging this country in fruitless attempts to avoid admitting that these CEO's are much too lazy to make the proper adjustments to ensure better conditions for their employees enabling the success of their businesses. But you've to to blame someone right?

Lets take a look at these companies:

"1. Westgate Resorts:
In early October, CEO Dave Siegel — of this real estate and timeshare company — sent out a letter to employees saying that he would be forced to fire people and reduce benefits if Obama is reelected, and gets to put forth his tax policies. He goes on to say that Obama's policies destroy his incentives and he would just end up firing everyone so as to retire on a Carribbean beach with no employees at all. At least, if your fired you could ask to stay for a while at his house, he certainly has room.

2. Papa Johns:
CEO John Schnatter has re-stated that he will have to reduce workers hours now that Obama has been reelected, because of Obamacare. He also stated that some of the cost will be passed onto the consumers as well with prices going up between 11 and 14 cents. While he does claim the health law to have a negative effect on his business, he has not stated that he is against it and has gone out of his way to say that everyone getting insurance is a good thing.

3. Applebee's:
Apple-Metro CEO Zane Tankel is the franchise owner of over 40 Applebee's in New York. His plan to avoid effects of the Affordable Care Act is to completely stop hiring any more people at all or build anymore restaurants. Of course, it remains to be seen if he can really stand to implement and stomach such a no-growth plan.

4. Murray Energy:
Robert Murray fired a total of 156 people from American Coal and Utah American Energy. His reason was that “America has betrayed coal miners” and that the reelection means a continuation of the “war on coal.” Murray should probably pay more attention to the natural gas boom if he wants real reasons as to why his business could be hurting." http://www.policymic.com/articles/18906/obamas-reelection-layoffs-papa-johns-applebees-and-the-companies-where-obama-reelection-will-get-you-fired

posted November 11, 2012 09:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
"Barack Obama, gay marriage, weed, and a new focus on climate change. This is the country, and the Republican Party has to adapt."

Really? Is that why Obama didn't mention a single one of those topics during the debates? In fact, the global warming messiah of four years ago who was supposed to "save the earth and stop the oceans from risng" had absolutely nothing at all to say about climate change. Or gays. Or weed.

---

Obama trumped state law with federal law when he sent the DEA after legal marijuana dispensaries, after promising he wouldn't.

quote:

---

At first, it seemed the DEA was targeting growers and sellers who arguably were not "in clear and unambiguous compliance" with state law, since the rules for supplying medical marijuana were fuzzy in jurisdictions such as California, Colorado and Montana. But the U.S. attorney letters conclusively show that, contrary to the impression left by the Ogden memo, complying with state law provides no protection against federal prosecution.

---

And here's another thing:

quote:

---

Most disappointing is his failure to say a word as president about the fact that half of all drug arrests each year are for nothing more than possessing a small amount of marijuana, which is something Barack Obama did lots of in his younger days, or to offer any critical comments about the stunning racial disproportionality in marijuana arrests around the country.

---

posted November 11, 2012 09:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
On the other thread you seemed laughingly surprised that I believed a tidbit shared by Michelle Obama regarding her husband.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/001519-3.html

And you very pointedly asked iQ to quote/give links for his information.

Yet here you are seemingly easily "buying" into what Randall said without asking him to cite any source of information.

Differing standards for different people???

---

Hi Linda,

I think it would be nice if you took the higher ground and addressed this maybe just in one place instead of giving me the impression you may start trying to nail me to the wall wherever I go.

I apologized on the other thread about laughing at the idea that Obama reads our letters. As I said, I didn't mean to laugh at YOU so much as the notion, which I regard as propagandistic.

My pointed questions to iQ...I would like him to answer them.

What I am trying to accomplish here is clear and open communication. iQ makes some shocking assertions based on what people think or believe, and then he goes on to make claims about the inner workings of government that I have never heard before.

All things considered, I think it would be courteous for him to supply links, so I can differentiate between what he is intuiting (ie "Obama thinks this...") and what he is reporting from other sources. It especially applies to iQ because there is confusion about where his facts come from: the news or the Akashik records or what (??)

If I don't ask someone else for links, like Randall, give me the benefit of the doubt please and assume that I am already familiar with the facts presented. I'm not trying to maintain an environment where we are uniformly regurgitating only facts from links, but I will ask for them when I personally would like to see them, so I can learn something or gauge the credibility of a fact presented, for my own learning.

Does my request for links from iQ rank as a greater offense than your pursuing a personal issue with me on two threads at once?

The thing is, because we aren't name calling here, because I am being honest with you and appreciating the fact that you are one of the most thorough people I've ever had the pleasure of interacting with, I think all of this qualifies as respectful enough. I think it's just understood that GU2 won't always be a mutual appreciation society and a little flexibility and range of expression ought to be tolerated.

Maybe we just have different ideas of what respect entails. I had already stated incredulity at the notion that the President reads our letters when you pressed on and encouraged me to write to him, as if my point didn't count at all the first time I said it. That could be construed as disrespectful, too, but I didn't take it that way. Someone else might have.

I think a lot of it boils down to personal chemistry.

posted November 11, 2012 10:37 AM            

If I am wrong, then surely a Leo President would have dragged America's name to the cleaners in the eyes of the world. Who else was a recent Leo President? Oh.. Bill Clinton. To this day the world loves Clinton's America.

And they will love Obama's America.

But you have a counterpoint to this: You disbelieve his birthday and birth certificate

posted November 11, 2012 10:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:

But you have a counterpoint to this: You disbelieve his birthday and birth certificate

---

Thank you for explaining, iQ. Too bad Ron Paul (Leo!!!) didn't win.

posted November 11, 2012 12:34 PM            

quote:

---

The creation of jobs has mostly been through the expansion of the bureaucracy, at the expense of the private sector.

---

False. The creation of jobs has primarily been in the private sector. The government's been shedding jobs.

quote:

---

The auto bailouts remain controversial and were a shoe-in for the ever-increasing bailouts, and a climate of virtual fiscal anarchy.

---

What?

quote:

---

Cutting taxes for working families is hardly charitable when preparing to saddle them with costly ObamaCare.

---

Obamacare is not costly. It costs no more than regular insurance. Where are you getting these ideas?

Randall, I was critiquing your post point by point, but literally every point was off the mark. Some by large margins. You're vastly misinformed if you believe what you've said here.

You guys want graphics?

posted November 11, 2012 12:38 PM            

quote:

---

If I don't ask someone else for links, like Randall, give me the benefit of the doubt please and assume that I am already familiar with the facts presented.

---

posted November 11, 2012 01:03 PM            

@Acoustic: I think we should watch the fiscal policies after Jan 3 2013 , and then we can guage the exact impact of Obamacare. I invite you to study David Wilcock's "Financial Tyranny" book on www.divinecosmos.com, when you have time.
My gut feeling is that Obama has Wall Street's cajones by the pincer, and so He is going to make sure Obamacare succeeds along with a tax cut for the middle class and moderate tax hikes for the elite as "punishment" for stealing trillions of dollars through the secondary financial market [clearly explained in Wilcock's book].

There could be new tax slabs.
Example: No tax hike for 250K to 500K, tax hikes for 500K+ and further tax cuts for those families earning below 250K per year. This will benefit 95% of the population.

I am also suspecting like a hoarding tax, estate tax hike and additional wealth taxes.

Hoarding tax can be levied on companies that have excess of billion dollars cash and yet deliberately choose to avoid investing in their own country.

posted November 11, 2012 01:27 PM            

It won't make a difference in the National Debt.

Services and spending need to be cut - drastically.

And speaking from experience, attacking the upper middle class of families that make $250,000 per year (that are now suddenly labeled as 'rich' only hurts the economy.

Guess what our business is doing after the recent California tax hikes? We're halting all hiring and possibly laying some people off.

posted November 11, 2012 01:34 PM            

quote:

---

And attacking the upper middle class of families that make $250,000 per year only hurts the economy (speaking from experience).

---

posted November 11, 2012 01:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:

It's not attacking, and it doesn't hurt the economy whatsoever.

---

posted November 11, 2012 02:26 PM            

His record for private sector recovery is disputed: http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/14/obamas-highly-misleading-claim-about-pri

posted November 11, 2012 02:36 PM            

quote:

---

Companies aren't going to drop employees to under 30 hours a week and lay off others to avoid having to provide full insurance under the provisions of the law? They say they are, so I take them at their word.

---

posted November 11, 2012 02:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Randall, yes. Every point. Yes, Obama signed NDAA, but you said he opposed it after signing it, which is untrue. He opposed it long before signing it, which gives the very definite understanding to me that you don't know the issue you speak about.

---

At one point, he opposed it before signing it (as Senator Carl Levin said on the floor in a widely-circulated YouTube video that you incredibly wrote off as "fake") because it didn't give the executive branch as much unmitigated power as Obama sought.

He did say he wouldn't USE the extraordinary powers given him with the NDAA, which is kind of like saying he opposes its spirit. But whatever he said after signing it is a moot point. He signed it.

Frankly just about everything he says is a moot point, since he's a liar, it's always more about what he DOES.