|
|
Obama 2Liz said Jun 9, 2008, 4:07 PM: |
||
|
This is the new Obama thread, a continuation of this thread. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali said Jun 9, 2008, 8:00 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali said Jun 9, 2008, 8:50 PM: |
||
|
Sandra! And thanks Arthur for framing it in terms of the golden shadow…yes!
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 9, 2008, 9:00 PM: |
||
|
e: Because he has had to straddle that fence long before he developed thru an ethnocentric phase, he has transcended race. He is able to seamlessly move in and out of different racial contexts. Even the Jeremiah Wright issue shows this. It was such a non-issue for him, he simply stood by his pastor. It was only when the folks who were stuck in their own ethnicity made a big stink that he had to make a ‘political' move away from him. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Balder said Jun 9, 2008, 9:28 PM: |
||
|
David, I'm curious why you've continued to use the word, pander, in relation to his campaigning in Iowa. It is a negatively charged word, not a neutral one. Was there something unethical, in your view, in his campaign work in Iowa? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2profundity said Jun 9, 2008, 10:16 PM: |
||
|
> Profundity: |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 9, 2008, 10:54 PM: |
||
|
Obama made a political decision to take his name off the ballot in Michigan—he wanted to pander to the people in Iowa (Iowans were upset Michigan was holding their primary too early). And then: As I mentioned earlier, Obama took his name off the ballot [in Michigan] to pander to the people in Iowa. So, Iowans, who take pride in holding their caucus first and having an unusually large influence on primaries, were angry at Michigan and Florida for moving up their primaries. They, Iowans, wanted to be the ones to choose the nominee, not Badgers or Floridians. So Obama, with nothing to lose but something to gain by making the Michigan vote look meaningless and doing something to please Iowans, took his name off the ballot in Michigan. He was saying, “Look, I realize you Iowans are more special than anyone else. You deserve to be the ones to have such a large influence on the nomination process. Now pick me!” And they did, but it was a caucus and not a primary, so we'll never really know how the people of Iowa really felt about it. Bruce: Was there something unethical, in your view, in his campaign work in Iowa? Well, he didn't tell the truth about his dealings with Exelon when he campaigned in Iowa, as you can read about here. Here's an excerpt:
Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.” “I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Balder said Jun 9, 2008, 11:22 PM: |
||
|
Pandering in a political context is still a negatively charged word. It isn't a neutral way to describe campaigning efforts, at least not in my understanding of it. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 9, 2008, 11:27 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 9, 2008, 11:47 PM: |
||
|
Would you say that Hillary has primarily been pandering to American voters for the past year, or would you use a different word? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Daniel said Jun 10, 2008, 2:22 AM: |
||
|
“The fact that so many people have been spreading similar inaccurage assertions without ever providing any references what-so-ever to actual factual sources to support those assertions gets tiring.” |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Balder said Jun 10, 2008, 7:23 AM: |
||
|
Fair enough, David. I'm just pointing out that you're giving a particularly negative spin to events, although your presentation comes across as authoritative and matter of fact. Certainly, some political commentators have speculated that Obama did this just to please Iowans. But he was not the only one to do it – John Edwards, Joseph Biden and Bill Richardson did as well, all arguably because Michigan was in violation of DNC rules. The fact that it was strategic, also, is no particularly negative mark against any of them, in my opinion. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2e said Jun 10, 2008, 10:21 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 10, 2008, 5:49 PM: |
||
|
Fair enough, David. I'm just pointing out that you're giving a particularly negative spin to events, although your presentation comes across as authoritative and matter of fact. Certainly, some political commentators have speculated that Obama did this just to please Iowans. But he was not the only one to do it - John Edwards, Joseph Biden and Bill Richardson did as well, all arguably because Michigan was in violation of DNC rules. The fact that it was strategic, also, is no particularly negative mark against any of them, in my opinion.
http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/michigan_poll_101007.htm So I don't think it's very high minded either to bend to pressure as they did or attempt to render meaningless the vote of a state in which they were losing badly. I mean, this is an election. The peoples' votes are supposed to count and be heard. Not campaigning there falls under the category of “strategy.” Taking your name off the ballot to render a vote meaningless is undemocratic, and in this case also pandering. The motivation on the part of Democratic leaders in Iowa was strictly selfish. Here is Iowa Secretary of State John Mauro: “I can travel the whole country, but it's going to be the candidates who are going to make this decision because they're going to take control of the party structure. On the Democratic side if that becomes Barack Obama, I think the people of Iowa can feel tremendously comfortable about what the status is going to be (of Iowa's Caucuses).” http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=16DCE19C-01B0-268B-51BB8A634C6CFCBF
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Balder said Jun 10, 2008, 5:55 PM: |
||
|
The other states probably have a legitimate beef, but that's something the DNC should resolve before the primaries get underway, then. Instead of expecting the candidates to ignore the rules of the DNC when certain states desire to go against them. You could just as easily say that Hillary was willing to wink at the deliberate violation of DNC rules only because she expected to win in those states that were jumping the gun. One wonders what she would have done, what she would have argued, if the tables had been turned and Obama's clear-win states were the ones ignoring DNC rules. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 10, 2008, 5:55 PM: |
||
|
e: What do you think David, should the statesmen be judged by the remarks of his pastor in church? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali said Jun 10, 2008, 7:18 PM: |
||
|
I think Mr Obama is able to take the best from people and leave the rest or even heal with his presence (as we all here do) - this is an integral position to take. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 10, 2008, 10:35 PM: |
||
|
Bruce: You could just as easily say that Hillary was willing to wink at the deliberate violation of DNC rules only because she expected to win in those states that were jumping the gun. Bruce: One wonders what she would have done, what she would have argued, if the tables had been turned and Obama's clear-win states were the ones ignoring DNC rules. Gitanjali: I think Mr Obama is able to take the best from people and leave the rest or even heal with his presence (as we all here do) - this is an integral position to take.
But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest.”
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 10, 2008, 11:19 PM: |
||
|
Hatred, distrust and dislike of Obama amongst African Americans? Its a specific thought in my mind currently, something resonates within what I am watching and feeling. I am unsure how to analysis it though. Any pointers would be welcome. In the first’s instance I thought that where this phenomeum existed it could be a manifestation of internalised racism. But even if that is ‘true-ish’ it seems too simple an explanation. I have gone back further then to look at the legacy of slavery- the house and field slave mentality and how that could translate today. Would this specific group of African Americans be able to accept Obama at most as VP but the ultimate prize is too disruptive of a worldview of what is ‘appropriate’ for their racial mindset and within the wider context.That the Eurocentric and visibly white man/woman as dominant expression of power is ‘the waythings are’.And if Obama is to win it must be with the help of that status quo centered around what Hillary clinton represents, ( even though most of his VP picks are also white ) I don’t know enough of the history of how the two paradigmatic groups house and field slave , were pitted against each other but in terms of privilege, but I do know enough about light and dark skins and hierarchies. To the extent that the house slaves were often more invested in many more ways than the field slaves to keep the status quo, they were more likely to take up arms with their owns to fight the up risings. There is no overt group of blacks against Obama and yet….. Again in the here and now is it important for Obama, in part because of what he represents symbolically (the racial aspect), not to win, not only because of the cries of inexperience, campaign shenanigans or adeptness, or it being Hillary’s turn, but also because a win by him fundamentally changes the tribal ethnocentric status quo…the reinvestment in the narrative of victimhood. i recall way back when Bill Cosby got slated for daring to suggest that african americans begin looking at to them selves, despite all the inherent disavantages and oppressions. I am aware that some blacks do see him as the weaker to the two candidates, fair enough, but that wouldn’t account for some of the dislike he attracts within the African American community. I happen to think he is the right candidate for the times because he includes and transcends the racial element and that that signifier is important. I feel Geraldine Ferraro was right, but that she was also bitter and less able to admit that the advantages both candidates brought to the process was significant. Nor do I feel the desire of some whites to vote for a black man to be less noble an impetus than voting for him because he opposed the war; I feel candidates are carriers of significances as well as policies. But back to the bitter blacks, internalised racism and tribal mindsets and those blacks specifically who will not vote for Obama under any circumstance because he is part black….which part of Aqal or SD would best shed some light here? http://www.afrigeneas.com/forumb/index.cgi?noframes;read=24547 Some Obama defenders online raise a number of theories to explain why prominent blacks have gone “off the reservation.” Jealousy, envy and ego often seem to top the list. But can it really be that simple? [me- I think that is only part of what is going on and that even as these feeling arise would there not also be some confusion and even recognition of how conditioned and internalised the back-of the-bus mindset had become way after such requirements where lifted out of law?] -Why some blacks have a problem with barrack Obama http://www.newtimesonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14559&Itemid=267 Apart from the nonsense of the alleged superiority of one slave to the other — when dogs and gun-wielding slave catchers would be set upon either group equally[ house or field slaves] if they tried to escape — there is quite a bit of sickness in the psyches of some of those African-Americans, and Africans resident in the United States, who say they cannot vote for Obama for one reason or another. Some of these believe that in order to appear “sophisticated”, they must prove to their white friends that they do not go with “the herd”. In other words, they do not want to appear to be racists who will vote for Obama merely because he’s black like them. This is ok as far as it goes. But it ignores the historical significance of Obama’s candidature. —– For intutive reasons I feel this ‘sickness of the psyche’ is both real and rarely spoken of. In a humourous context i have seen it bandied around amongst blacks as ‘black people don’t ski’. Which of course they do, those who wish to. Would this sickness or contraction be be something that Robert Masters techniques could unlock in a safe fashion. or even genpo Roshis Big mind . Nor am I saying that where found unovered and released and gieven voice that the same self african american would be automatically inclined to vote for Obama. I also went back to listen to wilber talking to Saul Williams about the album the rise and liberation of Niggy Tardust( i first listened to it while i was woking on a large scale collage the skinning of Negress Smith ) and while there Ken and Saul focus on flow and art and music there was much more. “…There is much talk in America recently around the issues of race. As Barack Obama continues to amass more and more delegates, we have begun to collectively reflect upon our relationship with race and racism, and the conversation seems to have polarized into two radically different positions. On one hand, Obama’s viability as a presidential candidate across a wide range of demographics prompts liberals to proudly declare that, finally, we live in a “post-racial” America, no longer tethered to the racial divisiveness that has infected our political systems since the country’s inception. On the other hand, a great number of people are still asking the question “are we ready for a black president?,” which itself seems to indicate that a genuine “post-racial” America is still on the horizon of human evolution. The truth, of course, lies somewhere between, or beyond, these two extremes—we have certainly made some tremendous strides in our collective attitudes toward race and racism, but we cannot confuse our accomplishments with outright victory. There can be no singular victory over racism, but like peace itself, it is a victory that must be won again and again, perpetually into the future…” and ”..While studying the Integral model, it can be easy to mistake “race” as a notion which, once we move past the ethno-centric stage of development, is something we no longer need to concern ourselves with. (Speaking in the context of the U.S., this is probably more true for whites than minorities, simply because minorities often report being subtly reminded of the color of their skin on a daily basis, simply from living in a white-majority mainstream culture.) But it is important to remember that even if we have moved beyond our exclusive identity with our own racial heritage, that aspect of our identity does not simply vanish, but instead becomes even more textured and nuanced than ever before. We also have the ability to more deeply explore other racial identities, cultures, and heritages, further enriching our own, and slowly peeling back many of the residual filters we unconsciously place over our perceptions of reality. The goal is not to be color-blind, as our politically-correct society often tells us to be, but to allow ourselves to see the entire spectrum of color, much more vividly than ever before. From this integral vantage point, we can see that our similarities are where we find Truth, our differences are where we find Beauty, and navigating between the two is where we find our Goodness…” |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2maryw said Jun 11, 2008, 1:49 PM: |
||
|
Hi Augustina – |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 11, 2008, 9:11 PM: |
||
|
Hi Mary, |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 10, 2008, 11:38 PM: |
||
|
e says: I never claimed the church was post-racial. I said Obama was. 2nd tier folks can fit in where ever they want you know. Thanks for making the point as succinctly as you did. Its put the spotlight for me on why I have never bought into nor been in the least concerned by the guilt by association campaign against Obama. I am pretty sure that Wright said many racially divisive things from the pulpit over the 20 years, but I have never believed for a moment they represented Obama viewpoint and that the benefits of being in the church, spiritually emotionally and politically far out weighed the need to leave it …until they did. I don’t feel his departure was political (n the pejorative) posturing; I do see it as calculating, in a strategic and focussed fashion. Road rules for getting to the white house….. Leave the church. Disown the Pastor.It was time. If it was staged then it was brilliantly done, if it was determined that parts of the populace need the theatre since they can’t see past how he could have been in the church for as long as he did and yet have a radically different worldview and opinion about America than the one Wright holds. The amazing thing for me is that the association did not sink him and it seems serendipitous that the story broke when it did and not now. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2e said Jun 11, 2008, 11:14 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 11, 2008, 9:18 PM: |
||
|
e: What do you think David, should the statesmen be judged by the remarks of his pastor in church? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 12, 2008, 12:51 PM: |
||
|
Okay, David, we get it! |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2adastra said Jun 12, 2008, 1:15 PM: |
||
|
Mascha: have you been able to convert even a single pod member to your point of view? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 12, 2008, 2:18 PM: |
||
|
Oh, no, McCain is having sex of some kind? How to deal with such a thought?? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 12, 2008, 10:53 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali said Jun 12, 2008, 11:09 PM: |
||
|
David, |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 12, 2008, 11:38 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Liz said Jun 13, 2008, 11:15 AM: |
||
|
Actually, David, Gitanjali is well within her rights as thread-starter to limit this discussion in any way she sees fit. It's time for you to drop the subject. You are always welcome to start a thread of your own on whatever topic you like, of course. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2adastra said Jun 13, 2008, 12:55 PM: |
||
|
I like this quote: Obama on Supreme Court Justices: “Both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time. What matters at the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult…That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.” cheers, Arthur |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 13, 2008, 12:07 AM: |
||
|
Hi Mods, tone is somewhat subjective, but could you do a review of this thread. At a purely feeling level I taste something bitter in the air. And its not in the points being made or the debate itself . Augustina |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Pelle said Jun 13, 2008, 2:09 AM: |
||
|
When it comes to the actual persons who are (were) running for president, I feel that both Hilary and Obama would have been (are) far better choices than a McCain who's bogged down by conservative values low down on the spiral. Hilary has publicly proved her interest in integral concepts, and I don't think anyone doubts that she's hardworking and has a lot of political skill. So I'm sure she could have done good things as president. However, the thing I don't trust about her, and that ultimately makes me prefer Obama, is that she didn't trust her authentic personality in the race, she adapted too much to how she “should” be and act. The few times that she let go, and was herself, came across as far more powerful to me. Obama, on the other hand, has never compromised when it comes to his core personality and how he shows up energetically. This makes me trust him. Sure, he plays the game of politics, and does what is needed to become elected. Why shouldn't he? If you want to win the game you need to play the game, such is life. Sure, you can spend you're life complaining about the rules of the game, but then you'll never get anywhere or achieve anything worthwhile. As integralites we can see that both approaches can be done at the same time: play the game to ultimately change the game, when you have a position of power. Without having any proof I feel that Obama is integral. The way he speaks and shows up simply resonates at an integral spectrum for me. My 2 cents, Pelle
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2e said Jun 13, 2008, 11:42 AM: |
||
|
David: Let's just start again: You don't think it's a problem that a candidate went to a church for 20 years where the pastor spread lies that encouraged people to hate and mistrust another race.
David: However, hasn't your position been a little black and white? I have to agree with David (although it pains me ;-) ) on this Mascha. I know you are active, invested and have a heart wider than the Mississippi but there is a way that you can be for the ‘good' without being against the ‘bad'. Like when Barack said in his speech as the presumptive nominee, ‘We are Americans first…' Augustina: At a purely feeling level I taste something bitter in the air.
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 13, 2008, 1:08 PM: |
||
|
Briefly, because I don't have much time and I agree with Liz - it's time to drop the arguing in fruitless circles. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2e said Jun 16, 2008, 9:51 AM: |
||
|
So, e, I disagree with your contention that I should not name the disease exactly the way I see it, but rather foster a sense of “unity” that has no foundation in the facts on the ground. Widespread corruption needs to be acknowledged, prosecuted and cut out like the cancerous growth it is on the body politic (he he, I can't believe I said “body politic”, that's so… urgghh).
Reframing the conversation we're having could start with recognizing that terms such as “liberal, conservative, conspiracy theory” and many more have been hijacked, systematically used to deceive the population for decades in the US.
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 16, 2008, 4:06 PM: |
||
|
That post is so patronizing, it's comical, e. Pythonesque in its presumptuousness. Really, as if you had superior insight into my reality. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali said Jun 17, 2008, 12:29 AM: |
||
|
Mascha, may I return the compliment and say I find this fascinating! a burnt offering thrown in for the inevitable win by the democrats? did i read that right? wow the intrigue of this story. The “things are not as they seem” and wait! things are not as they do not seem” :) |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 17, 2008, 1:26 PM: |
||
|
Cool- ishness, e. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2e said Jun 18, 2008, 9:34 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Lisaji said Jun 14, 2008, 2:38 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 14, 2008, 3:15 AM: |
||
|
Lisa wrote-'the person starting this thread has decided to curb its direction” |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 14, 2008, 3:33 AM: |
||
|
Smear me, no no Smear you |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Lisaji said Jun 14, 2008, 3:45 AM: |
||
|
Yes I am sure Augustina. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali said Jun 14, 2008, 4:52 AM: |
||
|
Lisa |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 14, 2008, 6:10 AM: |
||
|
Hi Lisa, |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Lisaji said Jun 14, 2008, 7:50 AM: |
||
|
I hear you both ladies. Some lovely things said there by you both. I definately think what you've both said might help others see & perhaps feel those dimentions of this discussion that are really wholeheartedly important to you both (all), and of course beg to be considered. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 15, 2008, 12:40 AM: |
||
|
…interrupts with something completely different - |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali said Jun 15, 2008, 8:19 PM: |
||
|
Here's an example of Mr Obama doing his ILP ;) |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali said Jun 15, 2008, 8:48 PM: |
||
|
Excellent Mascha! and excellente comment by AndyJ - I admire the skill of being dryly witty - the light touch, not one of my strengths yet I must confess. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 15, 2008, 9:04 PM: |
||
|
This as a follow up on ‘Smear me, No no smear you’ and fightthesmear.com McCain coming to the defense of Michelle Obama http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/13/mccain.interview/index.html PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (CNN) – Sen. John McCain said Friday that every candidate’s wife “should be treated with respect, and if there’s any disrespectful conduct on the part of anyone, those people should be rejected.” Sen. John McCain discusses the state of the presidential race with CNN’s Dana Bash on Friday. “I have the greatest respect for both Senator [Barack] and Michelle Obama. … I’ve never met her, Mrs. Obama, she’s a talented and a very effective person. And I admire both of them. We have stark differences in views,” he told CNN’s Dana Bash in a one-on-one interview. “Americans want us to have a much more respectful campaign than the kinds they’ve been seeing recently.” The comment comes a day after Obama’s campaign launched a new Web site, Fightthesmears.com, that aims to debunk rumors against the Illinois senator and his wife.’ I am not totally hot up with what does where in the quadrants. Still preferring to sense-feel the currents, but hopefully in a more sophisticated granular fashion than gut intuition. I feel that the smear groove operates within a context where source can not be pin pointed accurately and requires a rampant amber leaning culture to feed it. What I see Obama doing here is addressing the culture of a smear in its amber expression ,from yellow tactically but also giving those who participate in the culture of smears and counter smears something to amber to sink their teeth into i.e. naming and shaming identified smear masters. I think John McCain knows that going after Michelle Obama, or saying nothing while his surrogates do ,is going to be contrasted againt a male principle of Obama standing up for and defending his wife, and that has a knock on effect in the psyche of many women. I know where my thing is on this ,i especially look at how men/the masculine treats women/the feminine.I don’t know how much power McCain has to reign back those who think its a great idea to go after Michelle. but it warms my heart that he is on record standing up for her. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 17, 2008, 6:15 PM: |
||
|
How about a brief foray into integral theory to give this discussion the proper context? Warning: long post ahead. Sorry, Liz. :) |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali said Jun 17, 2008, 7:02 PM: |
||
|
David, thank you. I found your post interesting, useful and entertaining. I have some work to catch up on and other things that call my attention but I will come back to the Obama thread later. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Cartosys said Jun 23, 2008, 9:51 PM: |
||
|
Great stuff! Sorry if i'm short, but I need to make this post quick, so if I may: Fascists (Red)—Authoritarian, brutal, dictatorial, extremely self-interested. Nazis, Mussolini etc. Very little of this in the U.S. and none really above ground. Lyndon La Rouche perhaps, neo nazis, Ku Klux Klan, etc. Red organizes around reward for loyalty and punishment in an environment of perpetual fear. Mobs, dictatorships like Saddam etc. Nazi's, and the KKK on the other hand have inherent in them a more longterm “vision” or “philosophy”–if you want to call it that–in which to work or fight for. Definitely authoritarian, but those in authority would be seen as more bestowed with the shared “higher purpose.” Those kinds of qualities would classify them as ethnocentric amber. It's always more complicated than that though, since many Nazi's were clearly red individuals given their many barbaric and egocentric acts of torture, rape and murder. Hitler, however sounds classic amber though. at least from what i've learned through the documentary Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary Libertarians (Amber/Orange)—I'm not entirely certain about this—there may be other types of libertarians and to an extent the WS Republicans are libertarian), but I think at least some libertarians are like Amber Wall Street Republicans: the market force is perfect, godlike, and the Constitution is the Bible. Ron Paul, who believes that the Constitution makes something like 17 references to God when it makes zero and that the market forces are 100% perfect, is one of these.This is a good one. A strive for liberty is development through the masculine type (individualistic) voice, And the Libertarian philosophy expressed by those such as Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and the Constitution are very Orange rational. Again much amber is seen around Ron Paul as well, but that's a matter of lines of development IMO. Hopefully i'll post more later. Thanks. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 17, 2008, 7:15 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 18, 2008, 6:13 PM: |
||
|
Echotrail posted this today on democraticunderground.com |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 18, 2008, 10:54 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 19, 2008, 1:44 AM: |
||
|
David , |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 19, 2008, 2:36 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Dmitri said Jun 19, 2008, 10:22 AM: |
||
|
It seems things may be slowing down on this thread here now that Obama has won the nomination. Personally, though I think Obama is the best candidate for president, I don’t trust him. I don’t trust any presidential candidate. I think they are all owned by the lobbyists no matter what they say. Of course we want the best candidate we can get and I think Obama will do very well within the constraints of our system, but I think our system is flawed. I would like to encourage ideas on what a better system would look like. What would Integral Government be made of? How would it work? I posted one idea on a new thread in Chapel Perspicacious called Holacracy: New Government Form. I’m not trying to end this thread, but I would love it if some of your juicy, intelligent energies could focus on ‘where do we go from here?’ !! |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Dmitri said Jun 19, 2008, 5:39 PM: |
||
|
Nevermind that. Arthur pointed out a post that's already going on: |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 20, 2008, 11:11 AM: |
||
|
The art Offends |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali said Jun 23, 2008, 5:26 PM: |
||
|
Hmmm |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Daniel said Jun 23, 2008, 8:37 PM: |
||
|
A bit presumptuous isn't he? Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a meeting of Democratic Governors at the Chicago History Museum in Chicago Friday, June 20, 2008. A new seal debuted on Obama's podium Friday, sporting iconography used in the U.S. presidential seal, the blue background, the eagle clutching arrows on left and olive branch on right, but with symbolic differences. Instead of the Latin 'E pluribus unum' (Out of many, one), Obama's says 'Vero possumus', rough Latin for 'Yes, we can.' Instead of 'Seal of the President of the United States', Obama's Web site address is listed. And instead of a shield, Obama's eagle wears his 'O' campaign logo with a rising sun representing hope ahead. | |||

Help




