XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: cuddly@mindless.com   
      
   On 8/30/2016 1:55 AM, liaM wrote:   
   > Am 8/29/2016 11:43 PM, schrieb Julian:   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)