Obama Nation of Desolation?
-
@KRVB MMShCh said
"If we tweak 'Obama' a bit to get Ohbamah then 718 we have:"
If you google 'Ohbamah' there are a surprising amount of results!
L.Lazuli
-
Oba - an African King
Ma - common worldwide for Mother
Baraka, as "Barack" is sometimes spelled (see Wikipedia, as for this:) spiritual wisdom and blessing transmitted from GodThus doth He combine the male and female in the highest and bring wisdom from above.
He is clearly the new Messiah, the King appointed by Nuit to bring blessings to us all. Or, as South Park has pointed out, he is someone who, by having even got this far, has clearly compromised any integrity he may have once had.
-
Oba Ma Baraka
an anagram of Obi Wan Kenobi! (give or take a few letters)
-
Anarchy in the US forever--both of them be damned.
-
Is there a website or a book that lists the Thelemic numerical value of the English alphabet that you have been using in the above posts?
Thx
-
@Nudor said
"Is there a website or a book that lists the Thelemic numerical value of the English alphabet that you have been using in the above posts?
Thx"
...these are Hebrew attributions to English letters, only 'E' is counted as Heh & 'F' is counted as Vau.
616
-
Obama is also a flaming LiberAL!
-
That's good.
chrys333 -
@Silenci said
"a flaming LiberAL!"
There's a funny outcome of this coincidence of pronunciation (at least here in the States, where the term "liberal" has gradually been given negative connotations in the popular media): many Thelemites seem to go out of their way to pronounce "Liber AL" in ways where there's absolutely, positively no way of confusing it with the word "liberal."
Leeeeber Ahhhl vel Leeegis... (I've even heard "Lye-ber" -- rhymes with "imbiber!!")
Steve
-
Going off of Jim's initial post, who else thinks that this is a strange synchronicity, especially considering the fellow who enumerated "the obama nation of desolation" to = 718.
Personally I can't stand Obama and find it odd that there are thelemites who actually like the guy, especially considering the basis of their theology. If I were to associate a political ideology with Thelema it would have to be libertarianism. Limited Fed. Gov. who watches the waters for threats, a self-governing state republic and little little taxation. I just don't get how people whos beliefs revolve around freedom and true will would consider a candidate who wants to grow government and create a welfare state? To me that is just domesticating the masses, getting them hooked on the gov. teet and atrophying their innate ability to fend for themselves and let the private sector step up to the plate when it comes to charitable acts. But when it comes to politics, many lib's aren't using their head anyway so I guess i shouldn't be too surprised anyway..and don't get me started on republicans either...
-
@Silenci said
"
I just don't get how people whos beliefs revolve around freedom and true will would consider a candidate who wants to grow government and create a welfare state?
"If this country became a welfare state, I could sit around and do nothing...
-
@Silenci said
"Personally I can't stand Obama and find it odd that there are thelemites who actually like the guy"
FWIW: He wasn't my first choice, but he's definitely getting my vote. (Most restaurants require that one more or less order off the menu that they present you.)
"If I were to associate a political ideology with Thelema it would have to be libertarianism."
The only possible winners in this national election are the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. One must vote for one or the other, or opt out of the event altogether, or knowingly throw one's vote away. To pick either of the last two choices is to effectively vote for the main party candidate that you least want. (In the math of it all, each vote counts as two votes - the one you gave person A and the one you didn't give person B.)
I find it interesting that The Book of the Law has chapters for at least each of the the two primary parties at their best. One core message of Chapter 2 - the Hadit perspective - is that each needs to be permitted to fulfill himself or herself in the most complete way independent of outside interference. One core message of Chapter 1 - the Nuit perspective - is that there is no separation among us and that we're all in this together and as one (the economic perspective of seeking a rising tide that lifts all boats). Both perspectives are needed and I find, too often, that Thelemites surge into the Hadit point of view while ignoring the Nuit perspective.
"I just don't get how people whos beliefs revolve around freedom and true will would consider a candidate who wants to grow government and create a welfare state?"
He doesn't. That's simply an incorrect statement. I'm not his biggest supporter, but there is nothing in his message or stated plans or history that supports the idea that he wants to grow a welfare state.
In fact, of the three leading Democratic contenders, he's the only one who didn't come forth with and stand for a comprehensive national health plan. To me, that was one of his great weaknesses. What we need, hands down, is a single payer, government run guaranteed health system, and the other Dem aspirants' plans at least could be grown to that eventually. Obama has barely taken a stand on the health issue at all.
-
Obama was born of a US citizen. He is a citizen.
That's how it works.
You don't think that George Bush is a puppet with masters, with ties to Saudis? You think Obama could do worse? So that you would consider McCain, who was part of the Keating Five? Who backed deregulation (another word for piracy), and now wants to be a socialist and back up, not Americans, but the banking industry and the stock market giants? As if they hadn't made their millions/billions all ready?
Obama is not my favorite person, but Mc Cain is better?
Did you vote for Bush each of the last two terms? Because I notice that many people who did are the ones most vigorous in defending the way things are. It's as if they don't want to admit they helped put us into this mess where the dollar is worth nothing compared to the Euro.
chrys333 -
@Chris Hanlon said
"Obama was born of a US citizen. He is a citizen. That's how it works."
He was also born in Hawaii in 1961 when Hawaii was a state.
BTW, the same kind of arguments recently were against McCain and, appropriately, dismissed by the court where they were brought. McCain was born of U.S. parents in the Panama Canal Zone. Some have charged that he's not native-born. The fact that his parents were U.S. citizens is enough, but the Canal Zone was also U.S. territory at the time.
-
@Behahemi said
"youre a pretty ignorant fucko to assume so much about me, same with edward the mason and all you other shits who are shoved so far up your own asses it makes me stand back in amazement"
Drinking again?
This kind of response is not acceptable here.
Third warning issued, and you're about an inch from getting kicked off the forum.
-
I think you've been very accommodating. There should be a few things that are instant kicks to the curb on this forum. I think this is the case here.
Although I usually see your wisdom , I have to disagree with you on voting for the lesser evils, and not doing so being "a loss."
If you believe in a single payer health case system, as I do, why not vote for Nader? I know, I know, because he's not going "to win" and then McCain will win, etc. But, if one must do their true will, how can you vote against you will by not voting for a candidate who embraces all your beliefs? He's the only candidate--on in 45 states--calling for it (not to mention immediate withdraw from Iraq and bringing Bush and Cheney up on war crimes charges).
Is it a fair comparison to say the most restaurants don't serve cakes of light either? Or their menu is not the book of the law?
Just a thought. But I don't believe voting for an alternative is really a waste in a wider sense. I feel compelled to do so.
I wouldn't have made it to this forum if I only had to choose between Evolution or Creationism (if that analogy fits, and I think it does.)
I'll admit though, it's very disconcerting thinking that McCain may win. I certainly prefer Obama to McCain across the board.
But when one goes against their true will, it always seems to get you back later.
(If politics and true will are on different planes, then I may be the fool. Very hard to separate them. Perhaps this could be a new thread???)
-
@Nudor said
"I think you've been very accommodating. There should be a few things that are instant kicks to the curb on this forum. I think this is the case here."
Thanks for supporting our maintaining some standards here. I disagree with you on the above, because every single one of us is an ass now and again. Also, when I remove someone, I don't just delete their account - I usually make it impossible for them even to see the forum again thereafter without at least getting an entirely new Internet service provider. So it isn't a slight thing.
"Although I usually see your wisdom , I have to disagree with you on voting for the lesser evils, and not doing so being "a loss.""
I was speaking in purely mathematical terms. (And "lesser of two evils" is your phrase, not mine.)
"If you believe in a single payer health case system, as I do, why not vote for Nader?"
For one, after 2000 I'd never vote for Nader again for anything the rest of my life. Second, to vote for Nader - or anyone who stands no chance of winning - is to throw your vote away.
"I know, I know, because he's not going "to win" and then McCain will win, etc. But, if one must do their true will, how can you vote against you will by not voting for a candidate who embraces all your beliefs?"
For one, Nader does not embrace my beliefs in general. For another, I view a vote not as an act of self-expression, but as a specific intention to make a particular thing happen, so (for the reasons you stated) voting for Nader would be very much against my being even if I didn't already have a grudge against him.
"Just a thought. But I don't believe voting for an alternative is really a waste in a wider sense. I feel compelled to do so."
Then I would encourage you to do so.
-
Jim, thanks for answering clearly.
Mathematically, as you made clear originally, works to explain one side of the coin (and it explained your point very well). Lesser of two evils is not my expression, it's a common use phrase abused to death. I shouldn't have used it. No one is immune to habits of bad English. My slip. Lessen learned. However, the other side would be those people who want something to happen that A (McCain) or B (Obama) are not going to execute. If you want a particular thing to happen, like single payer health care, why vote for someone who does not want to make it happen?
Unless you want to stop the onset of another Republican administration, which of course, I would have to say, math applies without question. I would concede on that argument. I chose to dwell on single payer health care.
Since you did vote for Nader in 2000, he must have appealed to you on some level. But, need this go into a pro/anti Nader debate, I'll rest with your answers. Many Dems hold a grudge against Nader, but more Dems in Florida voted for Bush than Dems/Independents voted for Nader.
More importantly, I'm a bit sad that my later remarks didn't illicit response. Are true politics and true will on different planes? Cakes of light on restaurant menus, do we settle for A or B and not fight for a C as Thelemites?
Is it really a matter of stopping another horrendous era instead of electing your conscience? Am I missing something?
I could change to your POV perhaps with a Thelemic/magick argument as I've never come across a political one to move me yet.
I heard it said, first one must get rid of the bad, then bring in the real progression.
Perhaps I'll reconsider. This is not easy. But, in all fairness isn't this the purpose of a forum?
Declarative statements like: voting for anyone who stands no chance of winning is to throw your vote away don't cut quite cut the cake.
For example, Thelemically (or magically) if one must, or only does look at events and outcomes mathematically, then I know I'll have to work my way to get there. There would be some support for this, astrology (sidereal, Qabalistic formula, etc). And it would then be a part of the initiation process I have yet to attain.
This is the idea I hoped my post would illicit some responses on.
Where you stand is quite clear to me, and respected.
Damn, politics are always the bitch of the party!
-
@Nudor said
"However, the other side would be those people who want something to happen that A (McCain) or B (Obama) are not going to execute. If you want a particular thing to happen, like single payer health care, why vote for someone who does not want to make it happen?"
I think that's a very good point. And if you don't like either, then it isn't a matter of letting a vote slip away from the one of the two you would prefer more.
"Unless you want to stop the onset of another Republican administration, which of course, I would have to say, math applies without question. I would concede on that argument. I chose to dwell on single payer health care."
All other considerations behind, I think there are three syllables that force the issue: Su Preme Court.
"Since you did vote for Nader in 2000,"
No, I didn't. I wouldn't have, and didn't. (Sorry if my words misled. What I meant to indicate was that after Nader became one of the primary factors that put George Bush in office, I was pretty unforgiving.)
I will never ever ever cast a U.S. President vote for a third party candidate. If I'm going to do that, I might as well not show up to vote. Local candidates? Sure! New parties IMHO should take 30-40 years to build solid records of winning occasional elections at the local and state level in every state, and then launch a national agenda when they have history of winning in each state. But egos aren't going to let that happen.
"More importantly, I'm a bit sad that my later remarks didn't illicit response. Are true politics and true will on different planes? Cakes of light on restaurant menus, do we settle for A or B and not fight for a C as Thelemites?"
Too complicated for a quick answer. Could be yes, could be no. Actually, I did answer what I consider the core of this: I don't vote as an act of self-expression per se. I vote in order to produce a specific concrete result. The selected resulted can arise from a variety of inner motivations. True Politics are probably approximately as much True Will as, say, True Car Shopping. When it comes down to it, sometimes you just need a car that will get you around and meet certain minimal standards, rather than be an expression of your Inner Ideal.
"Is it really a matter of stopping another horrendous era instead of electing your conscience? Am I missing something?"
Isn't "stopping another horrendous era" consistent with the dictates of your conscience?
"Perhaps I'll reconsider. This is not easy. But, in all fairness isn't this the purpose of a forum?"
I think it would be a wonderful purpose of a forum!
"Declarative statements like: voting for anyone who stands no chance of winning is to throw your vote away don't cut quite cut the cake."
If I hadn't explained it, or the meaning wasn't evident, then I would agree. But I think meaning was clear, n'est ce pas?
"For example, Thelemically (or magically) if one must, or only does look at events and outcomes mathematically, then I know I'll have to work my way to get there."
The magical approach would be: Of all possible results, which one do you pick? (Magick must be consistent with what's possible.)
"Damn, politics are always the bitch of the party!"
Politics and religion... they both express both our shared commonality and our distinctive individuality.
-
A Mathematician recently published a study where they calculated the statistical probability that your vote would make a difference in the outcome of an election. The probability on average per state?
1 in 16,000,000.
It was much higher in some states.