XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: cuddly@mindless.com   
      
   On 8/29/2016 6:10 PM, Wilson wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   > :-)   
   >   
      
      
   Just think of me as the guy holding a red rose in view of the CNBC   
   camera focused on a newscaster explaining the official reasons for the   
   proposed impeachment of Dilma Rousseff in Brazil.   
      
   The red rose is the symbol of socialist parties everywhere in the world.   
   Socialism is the real reason Rousseff is under threat to be impeached.   
   It's the real reason ALL of the newspapers and TV networks (including   
   the BBC) are denigrating Labour's Jeremy Corbyn in England.  Ditto   
   for Clinton and co. undermining Bernie Sanders' experiment.   
      
   And so on.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)