XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: julianlzb87@gmail.com   
      
   On 29/08/2016 22:18, liaM wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)