Roman Numeral I and Other Anomalies

The Roman Numeral I, designating the linage does not add a number to the Conscious Name Direction since it equals nine. It only adds a cycle without increasing the number, no matter how many of them there are. When calculating numbers of our favorite male politicians to understand them better, consider this.

Junior, however, is another matter. We never spell the namesake son’s moniker, but use Jr. To be honest, I’ve never quite reconciled this when calculating male names. I calculate Jr., since it is how we add it to their names.

Women have other problems with names. When a woman is married, her married name becomes part of the equation of character as a subordinate Name.


INTERESTING NOTE:

Two currently undecided presidential candidates have at least two Four(s) (4) in Significancy numbers. One has a Four (4) in his subordinate Name, making him a triple Four (4), but has a Seven (7) in the original Name. The other has a Six (6), as a subordinate Name, but a Two (2) as the original Name number. Doing research will garner the answer of who is which.

Four (4) can be (Moved) to be (Made Victorious) over personal animus, or can be intractably stubborn and remain negative. Neither of the waffling candidates seems particularly angry, but a Six (6) can hide this well. Sometimes, however, Four (4) wants to win at material things. Many sports players have Four (4) in a Significancy.

Personally, I am suspicious on any politician with a Six (6). Six (6) has either the (Fox Of) or the (Of Ox) nature. One uses cunning to get needs met. The other uses hard work. The job of a politician is not manual labor, so might fall under the (Fox Of) tier, not the tier (Of Ox). Six (6) in a Life Path gives the opportunity to learn truthfulness, suggesting this might be lacking.

I said previously that I would check out Buddy Roemer. So, I contacted his office from his web site: www.buddyroemer.com, using both e-mail and telephone. I called more than once. Their telephone goes to an answering machine with a voice of a most unhappy sounding young man. I’m sure that others would not trust leaving a message either. I’ve not yet gotten a response from my e-mail, suggesting that he is not taking advantage after the Colbert bump. Buddy Roemer may not be a serious candidate from his standpoint. This is too bad. He made a wonderful impression, at least, on me.

The problem with having Seven (7) in a Significancy number for politicians, is that it makes them totally bad, totally good, or in transition from one to the other, respectively. Mr. Roemer seems like he is on the positive side of the numbers, but unfortunately, perhaps, may not really have a fire in his belly to be the president. Seven (7) on the positive side can easily give up desires.

Mr. Roemer piss or get off the pot. And, please don’t think of that as a California reference. I’m making an analogy, not aspersions. You don’t seem to have any scandals in the Internet searches, so what is your problem? Let us get to know you better. We may decide against you, but you are the one who threw your hat in the ring, we didn’t pull it from your head. Thank goodness that you decided not to take corporate contributions. We want to believe you that you don’t need them. Someone has to prove you are right. It may as well be you. Just do the little things to prove you are really a candidate and not padding your retirement package pockets by being one of those professional candidates who do.

The other waffling candidate (to date) with the Six (6) subordinate Name, might just be trying to fool us all as foxes, cunningly, will do. After all, imitating a previous president is creepy, especially, one so creepy. To copy such a loathed president, who ran longtime Republicans out of the party, seems delusional. This penchant for imitation, however, shows the negative (Fox Of) characteristics of Six (6) that also (Ask For) material things. Therefore, we should wonder if he is in the race for altruistic reasons or personal aggrandizement. Internet searches and news reports claim that his claims are puffed. Remember: in real estate this is acceptable, but in politics it is lying. When his constituents can’t stand him, we should listen.

Those in earlier elections on the democratic side who had JFK haircuts, unfortunately in his case, were nothing like him. A haircut did not get them the presidency. Serves them right. Candidates, please be yourselves. For female candidates, this is easier. They have no frame-of-reference to copy.

I’d say it is about time we did. However, neither one jazzes me. Ms. Bachmann is clearly a nice lady, but her perspective seems skewed. I don’t mean to be unkind, but as a First Man, he ain’t. Ms. Palin’s husband, on the other hand, would be a wonderful First Fella. Her family is what families should be. However, who, is she in this for? Her ego seems thicker than her skin, but at least she isn’t as ideologically bent as Ms. Bachmann.

Already pundits are talking up candidates based on haircuts and personal appeal. When will we stop electing presidents based on physical attributes and hire them based on personal qualities?

I’d like to hear from anyone tracking candidates. We need all the information we can get.