Obama wins Presidential Election by Default

[Giorgio Tsoukalos]

Because McCain chose a first-time governor as his running mate for the presidency of the United States.

Talk about having "no experience"!!!!!

Discuss.

[truthseeker]

my question is this, if Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot be prez what gives Obama the right to be prez?

[Giorgio Tsoukalos]

Uhm, let's seeeeeeeeee....

Maybe because Arnold WAS NOT born in the United States????????? :roll:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

In fact, thank you George, you just gave me the idea for another thread... THANK YOU!

[truthseeker]

hmmm...i thought he was born outside the US?

obama was born 2 years BEFORE Hawaii was admitted into the union...wasn't he?


maybe i'm wrong


*goes off to investigate*


edit:

investigated, make what you will of this!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

[Giorgio Tsoukalos]

hmmm...i thought he was born outside the US?

Correct, indeed. Therefore, please check:

http://www.legendarytimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=554

[truthseeker]

i personally think obama will be a complete disaster for america...i've got a VERY bad feeling about all this!

the problem is, (not trying to be rasist) obama will quite possibly be seen as a savior by the poor black family's and if he carries on as the past 8 presidents have (serving themselves and the corporations) there could be anarchy in the streets.

2, he could be set up to be assassinated justifying a "no holds bar" foreign policy on the ENTIRE world!

3, he stated in germany that people will have to do more rather than less...what the hell does that mean?

4, i know for a fact he is corrupt and is nothing more than a puppet for the new world order, that just has trouble written all over it.

well its not a pretty picture and i sincerely hope i'm wrong, but i know the world is not that kind

[Giorgio Tsoukalos]

4, i know for a fact he is corrupt and is nothing more than a puppet for the new world order, that just has trouble written all over it.

And what? McCain is not corrupt??? And, above all else, evil?

I'll pick Obama over McCain ANY day.

McCain = more of the same. It's as simple as that.

[truthseeker]

thats my point, no matter what way you slice it-its more of the same.

ok, maybe i'm not making myself clear, my bad....

from what i've seen of US politicians theres only 2 possibly 3 professional politicians i would trust, Ron Paul and Dennis kucinich are definites and possibly Ralph Nader being the 3rd.

as for UK politicians, George Galloway is the only person i've seen with any kind of back bone in parliament.

anyone who calls for the federal reserve (and bank of england for us brits) to be shutdown is ok in my books...i just wish we had a Ron paul or Dennis kucinich over here in england

[Giorgio Tsoukalos]

from what i've seen of US politicians theres only 2 possibly 3 professional politicians i would trust, Ron Paul and Dennis kucinich are definites. ...i just wish we had a Ron paul or Dennis kucinich over here in england

Dennis Kucinich:
YES, my first choice, hands down, no question. A true, REAL patriot.

Ron Paul:
My very distant second choice, mainly because I simply cannot agree with someone who is a medical doctor by profession, who is AGAINST (!) universal healthcare. An MD simply cannot be against universal healthcare. Being against universal healthcare as an MD is in glaring contradiction of the Hippocratic Oath you must swear before you "become" a doctor.

Other than that, Ron Paul has some very interesting ideas and proposals.

So did Kucinich. For example, Kucinich is also for abolishing the IRS and establishing a flat tax for everyone. Regardless if someone makes $10,000 per year or $10,000,000 per year, you'll have to pay, I think, an 18% flat tax (or some number like that). It would be the same percentage for everyone, across the board. Talk about fair!

Kucinich even recently admitted to having seen a UFO - hours later, he was LAMBASTED by the media about it. Lambasted and ridiculed.

[truthseeker]

from what i've seen of US politicians theres only 2 possibly 3 professional politicians i would trust, Ron Paul and Dennis kucinich are definites. ...i just wish we had a Ron paul or Dennis kucinich over here in england

Dennis Kucinich:
YES, my first choice, hands down, no question. A true, REAL patriot.

Ron Paul:
My very distant second choice, mainly because I simply cannot agree with someone who is a medical doctor by profession, who is AGAINST (!) universal healthcare. An MD simply cannot be against universal healthcare. Being against universal healthcare as an MD is in glaring contradiction of the Hippocratic Oath you must swear before you "become" a doctor.

Other than that, Ron Paul has some very interesting ideas and proposals.

So did Kucinich. For example, Kucinich is also for abolishing the IRS and establishing a flat tax for everyone. Regardless if someone makes $10,000 per year or $10,000,000 per year, you'll have to pay, I think, an 18% flat tax (or some number like that). It would be the same percentage for everyone, across the board. Talk about fair!

Kucinich even recently admitted to having seen a UFO - hours later, he was LAMBASTED by the media about it. Lambasted and ridiculed.

that sounds about right for the media these days...

did ron paul have other plans for the nations health care system or??

[Jeff Sheets]

I have been trying (apparently without success) not to comment about the presidential politics thing but here's my $.02 anyway.

I would be fine with Kucinich or Paul, or any candidate that isn't in the current RepubliCrat oligarchy. Either one of them could do some good.

However, I see McCain as an experienced bland moderate and Obama as an inexperienced rabid leftist. Given the choice between McCain and Obama, I am forced to prefer McCain. He is least likely to make things worse while he is in power. He also disagrees strongly with the Bush policies and could even start rolling them back.

As for McCain's vp pick, she is competent and a woman. It is time we saw what a strong woman can do in this country. Obama shoulda picked Clinton, or at least his wife, she's no slouch. Instead he picked an old white dumb guy? Can't wait to hear the debate. So much for change...

The separation of powers doctrine allows a Democrat-controlled Congress to counterbalance any threat posed by an ultra-conservative president. If Obama were elected, he would have a blank check to screw this country up royal with little opposition from Congress. Things may not look great right now, but they can get MUCH worse...under cover of another -ism.

Kinda makes me think of Star Wars. The force must be in balance or somebody will take it in the shorts.

[Giorgio Tsoukalos]

He [McCain] also disagrees strongly with the Bush policies and could even start rolling them back.

Respectfully, but what you just wrote here is so wrong, it isn't even wrong.

It's just plain false.

Please: Fact check, Jeff. Fact check.

Whether you like it or not, or better yet, whether you were aware of this or not, but McCain voted alongside/with Bush 90% (NINETY PERCENT!) of the time over the past 7 years! You call that "disagreeing with the Bush policies?"

Worse, you say that McCain "could start rolling back" some of the Bush policies?

Now you're really getting me riled up, Jeff! I mean, dream on!

Mark my words: NO Republican (including McCain) and NO Democrat (including Obama) will EVER roll back the legislation that went into effect under King Bush II. EVER.

I can't believe that you actually believe the wafting pile of crap that the media has placed in front of you about McCain being a "maverick." He might've remotely been a maverick, many, MANY years ago, but today? He is far, FAR removed from being a maverick the media claims him to be.

Don't believe me?

Remember, it was McCain who in 2000 publicly and very severely denounced the entire Christian Right, including ALL the evangelicals and its televangelist nutcases - fast forward to today - McCain now praises and agrees with the Christian Right and the televangelists.

And you call that being a moderate? Pandering to the Christian Right is being a "moderate"? Seriously, Jeff. Moderate? You've got to be joking. I'm really concerned when anyone considers the present-day McCain to be a "moderate."

And what about his attempts for tort reform? Once the fiercest advocate to implement strict tort reform, TODAY, McCain does not even whisper the term "tort reform."

Why? Because he's desperate for money! That's why!

Oh yeah, but he really stands for something, right? Think again, Jeff.

Years ago, McCain stood for something. Not anymore. He has, in fact, given up his true beliefs to pander to the one section of the population that will help him get into office: the evangelicals.

If Obama were elected, he would have a blank check to screw this country up royal with little opposition from Congress. Things may not look great right now, but they can get MUCH worse...

Wow. Worse, huh? Worse than what the United States of Amerika has experienced over the past 7 years? You mean when Obama is elected into office it'll be worse than the fascism we've experienced over the past 7 years? "Worse" how? "Worse" as in when, for example, Clinton was in office and this country experienced unprecedented economic growth? "Worse" because Obama will make Green Energy "our" call to action, just like Kennedy's call to action was to send a man to the Moon before the decade runs out? Oh yeah, that'll really be "worse": propelling alternative energy into the stratosphere while creating countless jobs to achieve those goals.

Or "worse" than when Obama will attempt to restore the international reputation which has been severely tarnished by the Bush fascists over the past 7 years? Being highly regarded again by the international community without another Republican in power, yeah, that'll really be "worse" than what situation we're in right now. Sure.

And universal health care really would screw up this country, now wouldn't it?

As for McCain's vp pick, she is competent and a woman. It is time we saw what a strong woman can do in this country. Obama shoulda picked Clinton, or at least his wife, she's no slouch. Instead he picked an old white dumb guy? Can't wait to hear the debate.

Competent?????????? She's a FIRST-TERM g-o-v-e-r-n-o-r (of A-l-a-s-k-a, a state where, what? 21 people live?) barely 18 months (!) in office and now she is one melanoma away from the presidency of the United States!?!?

She is a self-professed evangelical, for Pete's sake!

Oh yeah, she's really competent to run the United States of America!

She WILL be the last nail in the coffin regarding Roe vs.Wade! It'll be over for a woman's right to choose. Over. I really thought you'd take that into consideration, especially since you have a daughter, Jeff.

But you really crossed the line when you called Joe Biden "dumb." Do you know ANYTHING what Biden has done and stood for? If you did, you would've NEVER called him dumb. So please, before you make another unsubstantiated remark, calling Biden "dumb," no less, please simply read up on the man.

Biden has come from nothing, he is still the poorest" Senator there EVER was in the history of Congress, he lost over half of his family in a devastating car crash and he has served on countless hearing. Most significantly, he was integral in passing many pieces of very positive legislation.

And you call him "dumb"? With that track record?

A track record that, Palin, for example, does not even have? But now she's one melanoma away from running the United States - if their ticket gets elected?

And old? 64 ain't old. Check out how old McCain is. Now that's old.

I am flabbergasted that you've been this blinded by the right-wing propaganda machine. I didn't think they could get to you. But they really did. And in full force.

What are you going to tell me next? That Obama's a Muslim?

Wow. Just wow.

[Jeff Sheets]

Boy it sure is interesting and healthy to surround yourselves with folks with differing opinions.

I honestly expected some disagreement. and am sorry about calling Biden dumb, especially since I spouted that and didn't as you say, check the facts about him. I'm feeling kinda dumb right now for even weighing in on a topic that is so charged, when I know that I am probably the most conservative guy on the forum. No big problem, I have a fairly thick skin.

Biden's not such a bad guy as politicians go. I did find this on the wikipedia though:

Biden stated in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security, and that there was no option but to eliminate that threat.[26] The Bush administration rejected an effort Biden undertook with Senator Richard Lugar to pass a resolution authorizing military action only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts. In October 2002, Biden voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, justifying the Iraq War. He has long supported the appropriations to pay for the occupation, but has argued repeatedly that the war should be internationalized, that more soldiers are needed, and that the Bush administration should "level with the American people" about the cost and length of the conflict.[27]

So do I read this to mean that Bush just took longer to do what Biden wanted? How can he side with Bush if Bush is the devil? Wouldn't this make him complicit in all this Iraq war stuff? Sounds like just the other side of the same coin if you ask me. Sure, he had a hard life and started out poor but so did Bill Clinton and Elvis. This guy is a card carrying member of the Council of Foreign Relations. What does this non-governmental body do anyway? They plot how to take our rights away and give them to a world government. Thats what.

I do not believe that a) the Democrats (or the Republicans) have the country's best interest in mind and b) There is any difference. It is all in their approach. The Republicans want to take our rights and make the world into their own image and make no bones about it and tell you to your face. Meanwhile the Democrats want to do the same but they will use global warming, universal healthcare, and human rights as a scapegoat. Pick one.

You mentioned Roe v Wade. It is just a political tool to identify the enemy. Even my daughter (honestly) knows that her right to choose starts by keeping her legs together and ends when the law is concerned. Yes, abortion was dangerous and difficult to get when it was illegal, now it isn't. The choices are easier now when you have made some bad ones to begin with, but killing is killing is killing. Is all killing wrong? Some is done to preserve life or to prevent a dismal quality of life as in the case of extreme birth defects. We all choose to be civilized or not. I just wish the laws would be consistent and let doctor assisted suicide have the same sway as abortion.

All I am saying is that whoever is running for president or vp for that matter has been vetted by the powers that really run this country and have been deemed acceptable, which means I'm not happy with any of them. Obama is not a moslem but he seems to be some kind of twisted messiah. Makes me want to vote Libertarian, just so I'm not part of it.

Yerright. I should check facts at least as hard as I check them for everything else. Think of this as a learning process. I guess it's easier to gloss over the facts when you are fairly bored with the subject. I got interested in politics with Ross Perot and that was a complete letdown.

Carry on, I'll just watch the ruckus and stick to AAT

-Jeff

[truthseeker]

Jeff, no need to get embarrassed and i hope you continue to post in politics section as i always enjoy reading your posts because just as 1 off history's great personality's said...

"one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors"

~Plato

i think thats where we are now, all the people we call leaders and politicians (with the exception of a few) are clueless!
i would sooner have Jeff as prez or even prime minister than any of these mainstream goons
and further, nobody knows everything and if we say something wrong then someone else will soon correct us and thus our knowledge and understanding increases...thats a positive thing



the problem we have when it comes to electing officials to a public office is that we only have a choice from those propped up in front us and the only ones who stay the course are those with the most money, thats a contradiction in terms and should NOT be allowed.
it shouldnt have to come down to someone pulling out of a presidential race simply because they lack funds. thats not fair and should not be allowed, all the candidates should get a fair shot at it, but that will not be allowed for obvious reasons...

well thats the way i see it anyways

[Jeff Sheets]

I love that quote:

"one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors"

~Plato

Giorgio: I am a bit embarrassed that I spouted about an individual politician without thoroughly researching, Those of us that are into the AAT compete against others who don't know what they are saying either. That is not in the spirit of open mindedness. I try to keep my mind open and I also try to filter out propoganda too. Not easy. Hope you don't think less of me for being such a conservative.

Truthseeker: Thanks for the support. This forum is made up of folks with widely different perspectives. I try not to stray too far to the left or right but am usually perceived as being one or the other when I am not.

I guess I'll just stick to what I think rather than try and counter anyone elses philosophy.

I have a strong belief that anyone who wants the job to rule others is inherently the wrong person for the job. Reluctance to dominate others is the best qualification for the job. The paradox arises that we all have this "software" bug placed in our nature that pushes us to lead and dominate others. I call it the "Megalomania bug". It serves us and damns us in that we push ourselves to explore and increase our potential at the cost of burning our bridges with each other. I personally believe that "bug" was placed in our nature to make us easier to control, yet it makes us in some ways, equal with the gods.

This is why pacifism doesn't work, there is always going to be someone who will see a peaceful group as weak and then attack. So then to protect ourselves we acquire a strong DEFENSIVE military. Those who control the military must have constraints that guarantee that no other country is ever attacked out of malice. The problem with this is that it guarantees that every war will be fought on home soil. This is unacceptable of course, so we give ourselves permission to attack a country that is about to attack us. Then eventually, we give ourselves permission to attack those who destabilize the world or countries who sponsor those who attack us, so that they will end up more like us. This leads to more aggression until one country naturally comes out on top and becomes the world's police force. Now nobody really likes the police, and powerful police get greedy over time for more domination. Eventually, the police are brought down by an invading force and the whole thing just perpetuates. This is the story of our planet. Those who understand history can predict the future.

This is why I believe in balance. Balance is like diplomacy, it is not an end in itself but it tends to expand the timetable so that cooler heads can prevail. Sure, ultimate good is nice but it has its own pitfalls, namely, it cannot persist without evil barging in and taking advantage like some miscreant unwanted houseguest. It must be propelled from the premise by force, disturbing some of the household in the process.

Not that anyone will follow my ideas particularly, and there are details that need to be worked out by smarter folks, but here is my formula for a better government:

We should choose our presidents by random lottery and there should be three of them, each with a different "mission" war, peace, and justice with each having veto power over the other two; each president advised and supported by 1 senator each elected from each state, limited to one term of 10 years (three senators from each state). Every law should be sunsetted after 10-20 years regardless of importance and renewed as necessary by mandatory public vote. Campaign finance costs should be the responsibility of the federal govt, equal shares divided evenly among every but no less than 3 candidates for each Senator. Abolish tenure for judges (and teachers) and allow no more than 10 years served in any fifteen year period with Supreme court judges allowed to serve no more than 15 years in any 25 year period. Impeachment should be binding with a penalty. Any successfully impeached public official must immediately step down, refund the government any wages received since taking office, and must never be allowed to receive a pension from the misservice. Oh, and no public official can ever be exempt from any law that applies to everyone else equally. Conviction of violating ANY law while in office, triggers possible impeachment.

Every citizen must complete high school and college to at least an associate level, and serve at least two years in each of the three "missions" before the age of 30. For example, two years in military, two years in peace corps, two years in police/medical work. Every non citizen must secure permanent residency by serving in at least one of the three capacities.

All citizens must take part equally in the cost and benefits of a health care system, offset by debits for standards of unhealthy or risky behaviour which either limit care or levy a deductible on costs. Prisons should be reserved for violent criminals only, parole consists of anonymously serving the victims financially. All non-violent criminals should be forced to repay all victims in full and then given a choice of public or military service to serve their time. Crimes without victims should be abolished such as drug use, prostitution, etc. however, these activities should be debited to the health care system.

Anyone making personal hourly wages or small business smaller than 20 employees must NEVER be subject to an income tax, however, energy usage, luxuries, commodities, imports, exports, and sales of natural resources such as oil and metals should always be taxed at a flat rate to the corporations or entities that profit (sell or purchase). Government aid to other countries should be strictly limited to expertise, food, building materials, and training. Never allow weapons or war technology to cross no-corporate-stores-here!.

Membership in a world governing order is obtained by a country's record of good treatment of it's citizens, responsibilities and actions with other countries, and their stewardship with their resources. The world group would have the mission to discourage war and encourage cooperation and progress.

----------
See? it all makes sense... It would be a drastically better system than we have now.

[truthseeker]

this is why obama should be dismissed as someone who offers change:

http://actindependent.org/ZbigVentriloquist.pdf

obama does not offer change as evidenced by the people he is surrounded by.

and as for McSame...he should be rejected out of hand!

if you cant vote for kucinich or paul then vote for none of the above and send a message to our leaders that we are tired of their lies....

better yet, fire all of congress (except kucinich and paul and anyone else who supports a new investigation into 9/11, shutdown of the fed, end of the war in iraq and afghanistan and stop sending billions to israel when their are so many people who are in need of help at home and last by no means least...the full restoration of the constitution and bill of rights).

[Giorgio Tsoukalos]

this is why obama should be dismissed as someone who offers change:

http://actindependent.org/ZbigVentriloquist.pdf

obama does not offer change as evidenced by the people he is surrounded by.

ok, to answer this, I'm actually going to quote myself :

Obama ain't no friggin' Neocon. The Neocons - btw, Webster Griffin Tarpley is one of them... - WANT you to believe that Obama is worse than McCain. And all you do is play into their hands... by regurgitating plain untruths before checking, I mean REALLY checking up on facts. And respectfully, watching countless YouTube clips and reading right-wing leaning "articles" found on the web ain't no fact checking.

So let me get this straight: you're actually going to believe someone (Tarpley, in this case) whose main modus operandi is to perpetuate unsubstantiated falsehoods about Obama?

...but when "left-wing" commentators write something about McCain or Palin, or anyone on the other side of the aisle, then the left-wing commentator is immediately dismissed without merit?

Why the bias?

I HAVE read up on Tarpley, I KNOW his background, and while he DOES have some VERY interesting AND valid points regarding 9/11 etc., what you must NEVER forget when you read any of his "articles" is that in the end, at his very core, the guy is a bible-thumping Jesus freak.

Tarpley is firmly convinced that the End of Days are imminent and when the Apocalypse come Jesus will descend on a white cloud. And of course all of this will occur within our lifetime.

Respectfully, ANYONE who believes in such fairytales needs to have their head examined. Period. End of discussion.

Tarpley's overall intellect is inherently flawed if he believes in the return of Jesus and the imminent Apocalypse.

(If anyone disagree with this, before you answer, again, I highly urge you to read my Jesus Camp article.)

The bias MUST end somewhere.

[truthseeker]

Tarply is not a reliable source on his own, but i try to look at many sources and make up my own mind as to the state of affairs in the world...

as i said before, i hope i am wrong about Obama but i just cant see it.

if i am wrong i will write those words down and eat the paper...you have my word on it

[Giorgio Tsoukalos]

if i am wrong i will write those words down and eat the paper...you have my word on it

Like I said elsewhere: You're on brother! (spoken in my best Hulk Hogan impression)

[truthseeker]

if i am wrong i will write those words down and eat the paper...you have my word on it

Like I said elsewhere: You're on brother! (spoken in my best Hulk Hogan impression)

please don't misunderstand my motives, god knows, (no pun intended) america needs a prez that can be trusted to do the right thing and uphold the constitution and put right americas economic problems.

[subsailor393]

Hey
the Rep. run mccain and the lady because they knew they would lose...they just did not think they would lose as many in the house and senate. Bush dd what he was told to do..alow the economy to goin the can make a police state.....get us in wars.....and be a fool to the world.

[wildbill]

I'm not big on getting into political debates on forums, because inevitably you will get the people on both sides who refuse to talk objectively blah blah blah blah...although, I will admit, this discussion has remained fairly civil. I'm impressed.

I think Obama is a closet socialist and McCain is a Democrat in Republican clothing (not too mention a dumbass). My candidate of choice was Fred Thompson. I put my money where my mouth is by giving him the max contribution of $2,300. But, living in Oklahoma, I was depressed to learn that I was not only not able to vote for a 3rd party candidate, like Bob Barr (who I supported after Fred), but I couldn't even write in a candidate!! I came from Missouri, which allowed all of those things. So, I opted not to vote. Oklahoma almost always votes Republican anyways, so I didn't care. This is the first time since I turned 18 I purposefully chose not to vote.

I'm hoping that come 2012 there are actually decent candidates to vote for. But, I suspect that won't happen.

One thing I would like to see implemented, but alas would never happen, is term limits for US Congressmen. 12 years or 2 terms for Senators. 12 or 6 terms for Representatives. If you can't get done what you want to get done in 12 years, then it is time for you to move on and get some new blood in there. That will eliminate a lot of these power bases with senators like Dodd, Frank, McCain, Biden before becoming VP, countless others on both sides, and allow fresh ideas to come in. But, since it would require Congress to actually pass this law, we all know that won't happen.

Anyways, I'm done standing on my soapbox now.

Wild Bill :blues:

[neorealist]

I'm not big on getting into political debates on forums, because inevitably you will get the people on both sides who refuse to talk objectively blah blah blah blah...although, I will admit, this discussion has remained fairly civil. I'm impressed. :)

I think Obama is a closet socialist and McCain is a Democrat in Republican clothing (not too mention a dumbass). My candidate of choice was Fred Thompson. I put my money where my mouth is by giving him the max contribution of $2,300. But, living in Oklahoma, I was depressed to learn that I was not only not able to vote for a 3rd party candidate, like Bob Barr (who I supported after Fred), but I couldn't even write in a candidate!! I came from Missouri, which allowed all of those things. So, I opted not to vote. Oklahoma almost always votes Republican anyways, so I didn't care. This is the first time since I turned 18 I purposefully chose not to vote.

I'm hoping that come 2012 there are actually decent candidates to vote for. But, I suspect that won't happen. :(

One thing I would like to see implemented, but alas would never happen, is term limits for US Congressmen. 12 years or 2 terms for Senators. 12 or 6 terms for Representatives. If you can't get done what you want to get done in 12 years, then it is time for you to move on and get some new blood in there. That will eliminate a lot of these power bases with senators like Dodd, Frank, McCain, Biden before becoming VP, countless others on both sides, and allow fresh ideas to come in. But, since it would require Congress to actually pass this law, we all know that won't happen. :(

Anyways, I'm done standing on my soapbox now. :D

Wild Bill :blues:

<<APPLAUSE>>

Or how about limiting Congress's power to give themselves a pay raise? Or force them to pay into social security?

That really stinks you couldn't even write in you candidate of choice :(
I elected not to vote this election either...I have become totally disenfranchised with our mirror candidates who have to pander to top tier political action committees and THE lending institution, FED. There isn't much of a difference b/t the two parties anymore, except some social aspects that mean much IMHO.