posted November 13, 2012 04:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by NativelyJoan:
But you have to take into consideration the opposition he faces and has faced in the past. Washington and politics are about leverage, who you know and what you can negotiate. You can't make massive reforms such as the ones Obama's has proposed in the past without fighting an incredibly up hill battle and meeting staunch resistance. He's even stated how difficult it is to change the system even when you're within the system. I'm willing to bet on him implementing a great deal of what he hasn't been able to within the next few years. I've said this before, he's going to shock us all (in a good way).

---

Here, example:
http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx0602408

quote:

---

Barack Obama’s rightward sprint is nowhere more obvious than in his betrayal on the FISA bill.

This bill allows the President to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant.

The ACLU says it represents “an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans.”

Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.”

---

quote:

---

Says Feingold: “Anybody who claims this is an OK bill, I really question if they’ve even read it.”

Has Obama?

If not, that’s a problem.

And if he has, and still approves of it, that’s an even bigger one

---

One of MANY examples of broken promises, and in this case he wasn't even elected POTUS yet. And that wasn't a compromise, that wasn't his buckling from politicians, that was him breaking a promise, no doubt because of bribes by AT&T, Verizon and Sprint (who spent A LOT lobbying for it as it provided them with immunity for what they'd helped Bush do in warantless wiretapping in the Bush years).

In any case Obama is firmly in the pocket of Goldman Sachs, Citibank, etc (and put some of them on his team).
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

quote:

---

As for President Obama, what is there to be said? Goldman Sachs was his number-one private campaign contributor. He put a Citigroup executive in charge of his economic transition team, and he just named an executive of JP Morgan Chase, the proud owner of $7.7 million in Chase stock, his new chief of staff. "The betrayal that this represents by Obama to everybody is just — we're not ready to believe it," says Budde, a classmate of the president from their Columbia days. "He's really ******* us over like that? Really? That's really a JP Morgan guy, really?"

---

Btw, the TARP and bailouts that Obama did on behalf of his corporate johns saved Wall Street at the expense of Main Street in some places, according to an article I read in Rolling Stone magazine (can't recall enough to actually find that article), but then Obama was doing what he was paid to do showing he wasn't about the "change" but "business as usual" and why some say America "has the best democracy money can buy."

And let's not forget Raytheon of the military industry complex that Obama, in breaking his promise once again regarding lobbyists, put one in charge of the Pentagon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTgobtv8scI

quote:

---

Obama has already U-turned on a new policy of not allowing lobbyists in his administration to work with issues they have lobbied on in the past. However, just two days after stating his policy, he is already made an exception to his own rule by allowing William Lynn, a defense lobbyist for Raytheon to become the deputy defense secretary.

---

Oh, btw, Raytheon is one of the major builder of drones that Obama uses willingly and not against his will and defended by his administration (bought & paid for in part by Raytheon).

Look, I understand rationalizing a very favored politician is something we can't help...if we WANT to believe strong enough our own brains will betray us to ignore the bad that makes us uncomfortable (caveat: if you're just as quick to defend Bush over the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and when he was caught whoring himself out to Enron, and also Goldman Sachs as well, then this doesn't apply to you, but rather more of seeing the POTUS as a Don Quixote figure, otherwise it does likely apply). But I thought you were an Anarchist, not a Democrat. So, assuming you're an Anarchist (if you are, can you say what kind?), why are you so strongly on board the Obama train to the point that you automatically assume Obama has a good excuse for all he's done so far and will radically change in the near future (instead of just making more excuses for more of the same) when there are plenty of liberals who can see Obama has real problems of integrity (even if they say he's the lesser evil)?

And why do you think the ACLU has been so against Obama's policies for all these years now, too? And do you think liberal shows like the Young Turks and the Alyona Show are spreading either hate or negativity when they point this out and saying things like Obama and other Democrats need us to put the fire to their feet or they'll turn out to be just like Republicans? And if so, did you feel different about them when they were criticizing Bush instead?

posted November 13, 2012 09:46 AM            

quote:

---

But I thought you were an Anarchist, not a Democrat. So, assuming you're an Anarchist (if you are, can you say what kind?), why are you so strongly on board the Obama train to the point that you automatically assume Obama has a good excuse for all he's done so far and will radically change in the near future (instead of just making more excuses for more of the same) when there are plenty of liberals who can see Obama has real problems of integrity (even if they say he's the lesser evil)?

---

I`ve been curious about this as well. I can`t tie anarchy to democrats (as we know them.)

posted November 13, 2012 10:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by pire:
Ok, it seems that those who support obama are asked to justify his actions and decisions, and then they are accused of doing just that. This is absurd.

---

I wasn't asking anyone for justification- as far as I'm concerned, there is none.

posted November 13, 2012 01:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
But I thought you were an Anarchist, not a Democrat. So, assuming you're an Anarchist (if you are, can you say what kind?), why are you so strongly on board the Obama train to the point that you automatically assume Obama has a good excuse for all he's done so far and will radically change in the near future (instead of just making more excuses for more of the same) when there are plenty of liberals who can see Obama has real problems of integrity (even if they say he's the lesser evil)?

---

Yes, even a potential liberal leaning anarchist supports the efforts of the President. Sorry libertarians, chew that up for a while, this world isn't black and white. And liberals are different, as are all conservatives and moderates. I'm very aware of Obama's actions and equally aware of the outside forces that helped or hampered his efforts to implement policies and make changes. I'm not blind to his errors, trust me I'm still irked by the fact that he didn't attend the International AIDS Conference held in DC, this past July because he was campaigning, among many other things. But he needed to win this reelection. He has to put his priorities in line, and I can't fault him for that. He's got quite a job on his hands. Anarchy appeals to me as does democracy as does time traveling. Maybe that's our issue as a civilization. We are too fixed in our thinking and develop concepts for societies that don't leave room for flexibility. I'm a liberal and on that basis, I tend to support politicians with liberal leaning viewpoints that are practical and that have real world potential (sorry Ron Paul, it would never have worked out). I'm justifying my political leaning to you because you asked, but understand I don't have too. Why I'm a liberal anarchist who tends to vote for Democrats (that is when I do actually vote, I tend to struggle with apathy towards politics though I'm surrounded by it) is my own prerogative.

I know my beliefs and where my political ideologies lean towards, which I've stated before on LL. Leaderless societies have always appealed to me, conceptually but not practically. Anarchy is an outdated and very impractical concept, we've seen it's failed implementation attempts throughout history. However, if we must have a central government, then it better be one that works with and towards the common good of the entire country. Not one that uses it's elite to exploit the masses. And the idea that everything should be left in the hands of each individual state government is preposterous (and completely impractical), we might as well change our name to the Divided States of America or just secede each state. Again on top of taking into consideration President Obama's political stances and policies, I measure the man. The person behind the image. I've told you before, Obama is almost too good for this country, we actually are quite lucky to have an individual such as himself in that position. You might not understand that today or tomorrow, but one day this could all begin to make sense.

Pixie Jane, you want me to consider President Obama as the lesser of two evils but I don't. He is fighting for change within a political system that is filled with political elites who use manipulation, leverage, fraud, power and control to maintain the status quo. Obama had to secure reelection, and he did, get ready!

posted November 13, 2012 01:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by pire:
I feel for u nativelyjoan, i am sorry u take all the heat from republicans on one side and anarchist on the other.
First, bear in mind that it is a coalition of convenience.
second, don't allow then to induce/insinuate in your mind the idea that u worship obama, that he would be an idol. They are implying that only fools can be happy of him.
Last, I believe u have a rational mind, mot because I have the same ideas than u ( i don't know what my ideas are from one day to the next), but because u proved that u were realistic and grounded.

U are not alone here, and out there. And your patience is your greatest weapon.
That is something I had wanted to say to many people here who had to defend themselves for giving their point of view

---

posted November 13, 2012 02:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Obama isn't fighting for change. He is a part of the same corruption you abhor. You sound like a woman who makes countless excuses for her abusive spouse. You are starstruck. But he will not accomplish much of anything this time around...except to disillusion those who misplace their blind faith upon him. Let him lead you to the slaughterhouse with a gullible smile on your faces, you blind little lambs.

---

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted November 13, 2012 02:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Obama isn't fighting for change. He is a part of the same corruption you abhor. You sound like a woman who makes countless excuses for her abusive spouse. You are starstruck. But he will not accomplish much of anything this time around...except to disillusion those who misplace their blind faith upon him. Let him lead you to the slaughterhouse with a gullible smile on your faces, you blind little lambs.

---

Interesting. This is evidently what I get for having a point of view. Being ridiculed so grotesquely and blatantly for sharing my own political beliefs. You don't need to agree with me Randall, but going out of your way to paint me as a delusional sacrificial lamb is demeaning and out of context. There is so much hatred within some responses on this thread and throughout GU it's palpable (and the truth just keeps seeping up to the surface). And it makes me wonder if this goes way beyond and much deeper than policies. But I digress, it doesn't even matter because Barack Obama is President, period! So we can scream, cry, pout, scratch our heads, throw a pity party, whatever your poison, it doesn't really matter.

For now, let's all just take a deep breathe. Cause we've got four more years of this guy and his buddy Biden in the White House!

posted November 13, 2012 03:57 PM            

rush et al have been at it for 25 years and they still lost...what's scarier is they are trying to make it look like their condescension and lies had nothing to do with it.

“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments -- enough of that,” Jindal told Politico. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”

Jindal told Politico Republicans should “stop being the stupid party” by working to embrace a larger group of constituents rather than becoming the party of "big anything."

of course there is the percentage of republican votes that were purely ANTI-MONKEY-in-the-white-house, but they really don't account for the majority of your party.

it is hysterical to me that anyone would chastise the president (whichever party) for being a politician. how the helle do you think they get to be president? jimmy stewart was ACTING in mr smith, you know. reciting words from a SCRIPT.

posted November 13, 2012 04:39 PM            

the petraeus connection is interesting in that regard.

Petraeus was so convincing on Baghdad that he manipulated President Obama into trying the same thing in Kabul. In Afghanistan, he first underhandedly pushed the White House into escalating the war in September 2009 (calling up columnists to “box” the president in) and waged a full-on leak campaign to undermine the White House policy process. Petraeus famously warned his staff that the White House was “f'ing ” with the wrong guy.

a civilian with little war experience is at the mercy of his generals when inheriting a war. lincoln had the same problem...at first. until the day he turned around and reminded them that HE was the commander, in "chief" of THEM.

intersting article on petraeus, very little of it about his "affair". http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/the-sins-of-general-david-petraeus

posted November 13, 2012 05:33 PM            

We saw very clearly with this election just how out of touch the general Right is with reality. That doesn't mean that you necessarily need to be out of touch yourself, but I've seen you side with outrageous ideas before (and I'm not just talking about global warming here). How are we to know that your opinion of Obama is any less outrageous than anyone else's?

posted November 13, 2012 05:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
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.

---

Faith,

If I remember correctly, I made my post on this thread prior to the one on the other thread. It was your post on the other thread which had actually made me bristle (I'd somehow missed it earlier and said so), but I read it after this one, hence the two posts on the two threads. So if it seems like I'm trying to "nail you to the wall where ever you go," then that assumption is incorrect.

My point here was not so much about someone providing links (I really don't care if someone does. If I need more info, I generally ask.). However, I've read posts from you in other forums also where you've asked others for links/source and assumed that you're particular about this. I know it is also an LL policy.

But beyond all this, I had only one reason in making my post. To question your apparent discrepancy between your different reactions--

Laughing at my purported naivete about believing smth related to the Prez., and then seeming to easily (without question) accept info in another post which didn't have any source provided.

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.

---

Your words, "...Now that you mention all that ..." is what made me think that you were hearing that info for the first time.

"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."

I assumed you expressed incredulity at the notion of writing him because you'd tried it and felt that despite trying you got nowhere. Which is why I asked (for my own clarification), "have you tried writing him?"

"That could be construed as disrespectful, too, but I didn't take it that way. Someone else might have."

As I explained above I asked the question for my own clarification, and not even because I wanted to encourage you to write him. However, even if I did encourage you, to my mind I wouldn't find the act of encouraging someone disrespectful. I wouldn't even classify the act as persistence since I mentioned it only once.

As far as pursuing personal issues against anyone, either here or in real life is concerned, the notion is in direct contrast to the natural directness I display online or in my personal life. I don't pursue issues with others under the guise of something else. If I have a problem with anything, I'm more accustomed to speaking about it openly and directly. For me it is not only time saving but also avoids the grey area of manipulation, which I dislike immensely (smth I've openly spoken about all over on LL).

"I think it's just understood that GU2 won't always be a mutual appreciation society"

No it won't. But I think we're doing much better now for the past week or so, although I'm still surprised at some of the snide comments.

I hope you will see my time spent on making my rather lengthy post to you as a sign of my respect for you. Cheers!

posted November 13, 2012 06:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Well-said, PJ.

---

I agree. I like hearing from people who like Obama, or once liked Obama, but haven't drank so much Kool-Aid that they can't see straight.

Other people are just going to turn a blind eye to Obama's faults, no matter what. Hence the apt comparison between Obama and the Messiah, based on how they are treated by their following.

It really is as if Obama can do no wrong. For example:

quote:

---

The person behind the image. I've told you before, Obama is almost too good for this country, we actually are quite lucky to have an individual such as himself in that position. You might not understand that today or tomorrow, but one day this could all begin to make sense.

Pixie Jane, you want me to consider President Obama as the lesser of two evils but I don't. He is fighting for change within a political system that is filled with political elites who use manipulation, leverage, fraud, power and control to maintain the status quo. Obama had to secure reelection, and he did, get ready!

---

Wit all due respect, NJ, that is over the top. He is NOT too good for this country.

What makes it a religious thing is, you can't say he does wrong without many of his defenders coming after you (it's like Jehovah's Witnesses, how they violate your space) trying to convert you, saying there must be something wrong with you (which is akin to, "You are in need of salvation!") if you mistakenly think Obama made some kind of error.

If you persist in thinking that he made an error, ANY ERROR, his defenders up their ante...you are not merely pessimistic, you are a hater. Full of negative energy. Probably a racist, birther, right-winger, elitist...

For many, you have to be labeled and dismissed as irrelevant, if you don't like Obama.

Which. Is. Totally !!!! Creepy !!!!

posted November 13, 2012 06:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Actually, AG, I see the flaws in Republicans (Romney in particular). That's what makes me different. Some of the people here just seem to have a girl crush on Obama. He can do no wrong. If he created death camps, they would justify it. But I see him all too clearly. And it has nothing to do with anything but his policies and his character (or lack thereof) and his duplicitous nature. But I don't expect the lambs to ever wake up or protest even as they look up lovingly in his eyes as the axe drops.

---

Isn't it duplicitous for Romney to use the millions he made as blood money to try and forge a political career, and to trick people into turning over the nation's purse to him? And you think that he is a better candidate? The one who laid off hundreds of middle class workers as he bought and sold companies for profit? Just like a used car salesman does. Who knows how many of those laid off committed suicide because they'd lost everything they had? And he wants us to now believe that suddenly he's all for the middle class and would now create jobs for people, when his resume shows that he's done the exact opposite?

When an applicant applies for a job, prospective employers look at past history of the applicant to check for suitability. Which employer in his right mind gives a job to someone when the applicant's resume shows he has done the opposite of what the position entails.

So why should the nation have given the job to Romney?

Besides, I strongly doubt that Romney would have resisted the pressures of his party's base--the special interest groups.

posted November 13, 2012 06:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Get a clue, Kat. When we explain something to you, it goes in one ear and straight through to the other like there is no brain matter in the middle to stop it.

---

Randall???? You making this level of personal attack? Not cool.

Surely you can make your point without resorting to this.

posted November 13, 2012 06:18 PM            

Thanks for writing back, hopefully we can resolve this and move on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
Your words,"...Now that you mention all that ..." is what made me think that you were hearing that info for the first time.

---

I'm sorry for the confusion, that was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Randall, AG, Kat and others here are familiar enough with my positions, that I thought they would see I was using understated humor.

Maybe not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
I assumed you expressed incredulity at the notion of writing him because you'd tried it and felt that despite trying you got nowhere. Which is why I asked (for my own clarification), "have you tried writing him?"

---

Ok but you actually said, "Why don't you try writing him yourself?" Which is a little more confusing to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
I wouldn't even classify the act as persistence since I mentioned it only once.

---

Ok, just different opinions then. I thought you were suggesting that I ought to write after I had mocked the idea that the letters even counted. I will chalk this up to regular old internet confusion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
If I have a problem with anything, I'm more accustomed to speaking about it openly and directly. For me it is not only time saving but also avoids the grey area of manipulation, which I dislike immensely (smth I've openly spoken about all over on LL).

---

Yes, and to give credit where it's due, I've always admired this about you and nominated you for an award on the LL End of the Year Awards thread because of it (before we got into this tangle.) But I still mean it, even if we're in a tangle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
I think we're doing much better now for the past week or so, although I'm still surprised at some of the snide comments.

---

Me, too, even if I'm the one feeling compelled to make them. Some comments just dig under my skin and I guess I've got a loooong hike ahead of me, to reach Enlightenment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
I hope you will see my time spent on making my rather lengthy post to you as a sign of my respect for you. Cheers!

---

Cheers back!