XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
From: absfg_wilson@yahoo.com
On 8/29/2016 7:10 AM, liaM wrote:
> On 8/29/2016 11:31 AM, noname wrote:
>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>> noname wrote:
>>>> Tang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The DDJ is written for rulers and would-be
>>>>> rulers.
>>>>
>>>> Not the way I read it. I read it to be highly esoteric, with very
>>>> subtle
>>>> differentiations that force the gross to one set of conclusions and
>>>> lead
>>>> the more subtle to a different set of conclusions. The mundane
>>>> reader will
>>>> see it as written for rulers and would-be rulers. Seeing the other
>>>> ground,
>>>> there is nothing to see because everything is background, and its
>>>> usefulness to the genuine seeker of the truth about Reality becomes
>>>> visible.
>>>
>>> Sometimes I see would-be or young rulers
>>> as learning to be a measure of their own lives.
>>>
>>> If not the definite article, the.
>>>
>>>>> To exclude some spheres a priori
>>>>> from the reach of the sage is to limit his
>>>>> freedom, a very anti-Daoist thingie.
>>>>
>>>> The sage is no more nor less limited than anyone else; the
>>>> difference is
>>>> that he knows it and takes it seriously.
>>>
>>> As does she. Unless she is at play.
>>>
>>> Then, it's a bit of a different story-line.
>>>
>>
>> I apologize to any women out there who object to my use of
>> gender-specific
>> pronouns, but imo the English language just isn't very gender-neutral. I
>> just use "his" because I'm a "him" and that language works; anybody who
>> gets tied up in "but i'm not a HE" is going to need to find someone
>> else to
>> read because all the gender-neutral wordings leave me saying that
>> politically-correct wording is a hazard which threatens one's ability to
>> express what is politically-incorrect.
>>
>>> Maybe Hillary is a hilarious sage or Sage,
>>> in her heart of hearts and knows a thing or three.
>>>
>>> Bill said she is Way smarter than him.
>>> And that's saying sum Ting.
>>>
>>> Cuz he was, what was it, a Roads dude.
>>>
>>> - ming ke ming, fei chang ming -
>>>
>>
>> Hilary is more of the same. The same has led nations to a mess.
>> Trump is
>> not the same. Many fear what he might stand for. I'm of the opinion
>> that
>> "most folks" are fed up with the same, but are too owned by what the same
>> has brought to be able to step toward what is not the same. Fears
>> tend to
>> hold to themselves.
>>
>> The US is no more free of an "aristocratic nobility" than countries that
>> have "Lords" and a recognized nobility, the difference being that the US
>> nobility is a nobility defined by the number of commas in one's supposed
>> "worth". Instead of being passed to descendants by merit of blood,
>> through
>> family lines, American "nobility" is passed through inheritance, but it's
>> the same elitism in different clothing.
>>
>> Trump's error imo is that his expressed position is to reduce inheritance
>> taxes. That means the wealthy nobility would retain familial wealth. If
>> inheritance were taken into account, and if someone wanted a nation of
>> true
>> equity between all citizens, inheritance tax would be 100-percent, nobody
>> would inherit the monies that are themselves the continuance of familial
>> "nobility" in the US. All inherited funds would go to the country to
>> provide the things that people need, and the children of the American
>> Nobility would have no further free-starts that are unavailable to
>> others.
>> Maybe Joe Average Jr would be able to go to MIT instead of the half-assed
>> local junior-college that teaches people how to be appliance
>> repairmen, and
>> Jill Average Jr could attend medical school instead of JC and become a
>> doctor instead of a nurse's assistant.
>>
>> But such a thing would require actual faith in a system that has already
>> and repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy. That's the thing about
>> the Clinton clique, they are imo untrustworthy. A "Hilary Bobbit"
>> might be
>> a better candidate than Hilary Clinton, who has shown her values in the
>> past.
>>
>> If inheritance tax was 100% the wealthy would find other means, gifts to
>> children, third-party trusts or foundations, to use the wording of the
>> laws
>> to vex the spirit in which the laws were written. The world's problems
>> would continue to slide below the surface and their mechanisms would work
>> largely as they do now.
>>
>> The wealthy cannot trust the system they have built to maintain their own
>> wealth. The poor despise them.
>> The situation is irresolvable; events will no doubt intervene to resolve
>> them, one way or another. To say that "heaven will intervene" would
>> invite
>> misunderstanding; suffice it to say that shit always happens as it must.
>>
>> I have no hope whatsoever for any improvement in the American
>> Nightmare if
>> Clinton is elected, the handcuffs America lives in will simply tighten
>> and
>> further reduce the freedom which is even now barely a ghost. If Trump is
>> elected, I figure either things will get better or they will get
>> worse; if
>> they get bad enough people might play the "enough is enough" song. Or,
>> not.
>>
>> Not my problem to solve; things work out.
>>
>
> "THings work out"- have already worked out in the worse best way
> retrospectively. With levels of consciousness in view, here's hope
> when elected, the Clintons (Bernie helping), wake themselves up from the
> nightmare America's been on since it fell asleep in the '80s.
Ah, that's Liam. Ever politically correct, but always mostly wrong.
:-)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
