interesting counter-view on Syria

[brian mitchell]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html

No idea if any of this is legitimate, so litle is verifiable whatever
source it comes from, but I do get the sense from what is going on in
Syria of a clash of agendas that has little to do with the 'freedom...
democracy...' buzzwords. And this struck me as quite telling:

<begin quote>
At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United
Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I
negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true.
In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and
Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan
because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at
least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to
challenge her.
<end quote>

[liaM]

The Syrian mess is another example of the power of populism
to create havoc under cover of which, hidden from view, right-wingers
can do what they please. The populism in question is Sionism's.

Having been a successful 2 term Senator from New York, i.e. New York
City, means Hilary is beholden to the power brokers of that city,
power brokers who are traditionally all in good faith liberal and
democratic, yet are hard put not to support Israel's quest for survival...

Thus the shows goes on. The Syrian mess hides what's happening
in Hebron (new settlements) and Gaza. Syria's army is no longer a
buffer and peace-maker in the Middle East. Hilary stuck inside a
mobile, at least until she becomes president.

As our friend Kirsten Bayes quipped just now (on FaceBook)
"Politics has a way of torturing idealists." So you have it,
your answer : Hilary is a pragmatic politician. She has had to
be to get to where she is today..

[Wilson]

Crap. She's a pay for play cronyist. If there's no payoff for her
personally she's not interested.

[Kitty P]

"Wilson" wrote in message news:npk0qc$ko$1...@dont-email.me...

Perhaps if there is some direct link where that statement can...you
know...be proven... then it might mean something. But guess what? It hasn't
thus far.

But hey - the polarization between people who are attempting to be fact
based and those who aren't is tearing up friendships right and left right
now. It isn't worth it. So I'll admit I don't actually care one way or
another what you wish to think. It's just fun to point out the errors in
thinking...you know...the way a kitten plays with twine. Be honest. You do
a bit of toying yourself heh

[liaM]

If you say so, Wilson. What's your payoff fighting off the IRS?

[liaM]

i.e. Wise up, Wilson. It's no use casting allegations here. Doesn't
work. We're wise to each other's games. - apart from cringing..

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/24/2016 7:40 AM, liaM wrote:

> i.e. Wise up, Wilson. It's no use casting allegations here. Doesn't
> work. We're wise to each other's games. - apart from cringing..

Right. We're wise to each other's games - apart
from cringing...

Fling all the choice words we can dredge up.
Nobody fools anybody else. Crybabies should
go elsewhere to play victims.

But also post wise words, funny words, to teach
and entertain. The more allusions the better.
The more farfetched allusions even the better.
Stretch beyond our reach. Make each other
jump through hoops to understand. Don't limit
ourselves. We may need to clear worlds to "get"
it. It's clean fun.

Tang Huyen

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/24/2016 6:42 AM, Kitty P wrote:

> Perhaps if there is some direct link where that statement can...you
> know...be proven... then it might mean something. But guess what? It
> hasn't thus far.
>
> But hey - the polarization between people who are attempting to be fact
> based and those who aren't is tearing up friendships right and left
> right now. It isn't worth it. So I'll admit I don't actually care one
> way or another what you wish to think. It's just fun to point out the
> errors in thinking...you know...the way a kitten plays with twine. Be
> honest. You do a bit of toying yourself heh

<<the way a kitten plays with twine. Be
honest. You do a bit of toying yourself heh>>

"and ure practice is so stable you can resist a
ball of yarn here kitty kitty". dar, 26 Jul 2001.

Great minds ...

Tang Huyen

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/24/2016 8:35 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

> Post humble words, quiet words, without intent.

Sure, Noah my sweet and loving son.
Thank you.

Post humble words, quiet words, without
intent. Now some effervescence and
sizzling are called for, now humble words,
quiet words, without intent, are apposite.

It takes all kinds. Dance all the rhythms.

(If I had money, I would love to hire you,
Noah, to follow me around to point out my
faults and errors for me. The rest of the
time, it will be just me).

Tang Huyen

[Wilson]

You're right. I don't even know how one would prove the money received
by the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's and Bill's speaking fees ever
resulted in untoward favors. Unless you had a smoking gun email, and I
don't think even they are brazen or stupid enough for that.

But ask yourself, what could possibly have justified giving them so much
money just to hear them talk. She is not a good public speaker (no
really, she sucks at speaking), and she has never released any of the
transcripts

Speaking fees: Hillary Clinton was paid more than $21 million for
making speeches to private concerns from April 2013 to March 2015.

It is difficult to imagine no breach of ethics when a high-profile,
presumptive candidate for president is paid more than $21 million in
less than two years for almost no work.

Total Bill and Hillary Clinton Speech Income from February 2001 thru May
2015 is $153,669,691. With 729 speeches, that's an average of $210,795
per speech.

Hillary's income just from speechifying, from April 2013 thru March 2015
totals $21,648,000. With 92 speeches that works out to an average of
$235,304 per speech.

She has never released any of the transcripts of those speeches.

You can make excuses all day long but you and I both know what's going
on here.

[Wilson]

Why? Do you think they'll go after me the same way they have gone after
some of Obama's critics?

[liaM]

LOL

[liaM]

On 8/24/2016 6:34 PM, Wilson wrote:
> You can make excuses all day long but you and I both know what's going
> on here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-B5vCLAoqw

lol

[{:-])))]

Once, "it" has been, "gotten"
is when the real, "fun" begins to begin.

New, More Cleaner Fun!
It's more fun than ever!
And funnier too!

Mixed with new improved mental culture
makes mental culture faster and easier than ever!

Don't wait for it.
Supplies are limited.

Order Now!

Now, with each order of More Cleaner Fun,
arrives in the Present. Get two for the price of One!

Imagine two Nows and two More Cleaner Funs!
All for one low, lower price than ever before.

Remember folks, ever before and ever before that,
old clean fun just doesn't measure up anymore.

You need More Cleaner Fun!
Now with Now for extra More Fun!

This is the lowest lower price available.
Now is Now Free. Imagine Free Now!

It's now Now available now.
Don't wait. Get, "it" today.

These prices won't last.

Hurry!

[liaM]

Kool-Aid, anyone?

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/24/2016 12:34 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

> "djinn"

>> ask a priest what one does all day in heaven
>> and they don't know. they do however seem
>> to think that they know what takes place in
>> hell all day long. so any state, even serenity,
>> may pale in the long run.
>>
>> this may be why what is called the absolute is
>> said to be a state of non-knowing. deep states
>> of samadhi and samyama are said to be similar.
>>
>> no state which is said to be knowable can stand
>> the test of time. even our sleep state dissolves
>> into a state of non-knowing when one has been
>> asleep for a while. it's actually consciousness
>> itself, and the existence it perceives, that we
>> *absolutely* can't stand.

> That is the problem that religions attempt to resolve. For a few
> people, they all seem to work. There is something the rest of us
> don't understand, I suspect.

Not to go as far as what djinn says, but for
many people, they are the bane of their
own lives. They can't abide themselves.

To borrow from djinn of some years ago:

<<too late. you already are it. you could
be no less or nothing else since what
you are from source cannot be changed
or swayed by the pervasive yet flimsy
illusion of what you are not, and i
assume from your question that you
never absorbed my previous answer
otherwise this question of yours would
never have surfaced.
you already are peace and nothing else
but you have temporarily identified with
that which is not peace and abide there.
in order to relinquish identification with
that which is not peace your abidance
negotiation must want peace more than
it wants that which is not peace. you
are not 'at' peace because you don't
really want to be.>>

<<all wanting can show a lack of peace
and yet when one finally changes all of
one's desires for the one desire for
freedom, peace is the mainstay by
which freedom can be recognized and
kept.>>

Tang Huyen

[Tang Huyen]

Your post is exactly what I mean by clean fun.
Thank you, JayLo, for the example. More of
the same, please!

Tang Huyen

[djinn]

"Tang Huyen" wrote in message
news:da89f6b1-566a-195e...@gmail.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and peace is the stepping stone to non-knowing

[{:-])))]

Tang wrote:
> Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> "djinn"
>
>>> ask a priest what one does all day in heaven
>>> and they don't know.

If you ask a straw-priest, that's what they all say.

If you ask a real priest, he, or she, may say something else.
They might, for example, visit Mary, and Thomas.
And pay a visit to their great grand-parents.
All things would be possible for them.
More or less. There is that gulf
even Lazarus couldn't get
across to the living.

>>> they do however seem
>>> to think that they know what takes place in
>>> hell all day long. so any state, even serenity,
>>> may pale in the long run.

In the long run of a river to an ocean a notion goes
how all drops are reabsorbed in the sea, if one can see.

Without eyes to notice how far One is,
one might blink, and miss the point.

>>> this may be why what is called the absolute is
>>> said to be a state of non-knowing. deep states
>>> of samadhi and samyama are said to be similar.

Being fully absorbed, highly evolved and totally involved,
one has nothing to say, absolutely. Cuz that's how One is.

>>> no state which is said to be knowable can stand
>>> the test of time.

Eternity, now and forever.
How one knows now is how now is known.

When one gives up looking for peace
one might find one is at peace.

It's a good trick, when it works.

[{:-])))]

Tang wrote in appreciation:

Once upon a time,
the light-hearted people floated in and out and went
far above those whose hearts were heavy.

Over the heads of others, their sayings were known
to have gone, in a single bound, leaping and splashing
tall buildings more powerful than a speeding bullet point
on a slide show at the water park.

They were the super-big-gun soakers of the old western.
Their plastique was made of pure Gordian.
And when they blanked out, well,
that was that.

It was high noon that day my friends.
And the Moon was full at the same time.

Funny, thought the astronomer-priest.
Normally, "it" does not appear in such a fashion.

Oh, but this was no ordinary day.
No. Not at all. This was the final day.
The show down up the street was unfolding.

"It" was what everyone was waiting for.
This was, "it" and everyone knew what "it" meant.

Except for those with a heavy heart.
Sad. But true none-the-less.

So, those with hearts full of light came down.
For it was not as much fun when not everyone is
not having at least some fun. Their compassion
was their down falling for a spell.

Then, suddenly, shots rang out of proportion.
Everyone turned around and saw. They saw.
And they knew what they were doing and
what had been done.

It was all in fun, after all.
And even the sadness was part of the show.

And then, everyone knew.
The show must go on.

And so, leaving the theater of mind, everyone
went on about their own business being busy and all.

Each becoming involved and forgetting all
about the fun they had at the water park that day.

On the final day, when, "it" was found
playing in the water, for a moment, having fun.

Making a splash.
Hitting the high notes and the low.
To jump up, one may need to bend a bit.

Unless one is spring-loaded.
But that's another story.

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/24/2016 4:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

> A hint of what we don't understand: we want mystical benefits,
> whatever we conceive them to be, while remaining as we are.

Again, to borrow from djinn from some years
ago:

<<when you "attain" that absolute viewpoint,
so to speak, you understand with full conviction
that you are perfect, whole and complete as
you are and you don't "need" anything. this is
why when ramana maharshi got a big dose of
awakening he just laid down in a cave and was
willing to surrender even his life to his divine
acumen until villagers fed him and built him an
ashram so he could teach.>>

Many practitioners of mental culture aspire to
fancy mystical states or whatever, and scarcely
understand that mental culture is to help them
come to peace with themselves and reconcile
with themselves, so that they don't need
anything any more. They still have a body and
still need to follow physical and social laws, but
mystical states or whatever are frills that will
come on the way but that will block the way if
taken seriously.

Tang Huyen

[djinn]

"Tang Huyen" wrote in message

news:8abc43ae-a635-ec39...@gmail.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

patanjali said that the yoga siddhi
powers were to be ignored

[pi]

Nice :)

pi

[{:-])))]

Siddhis are said to be ignored along the Way.

Yet to put it as such sounds a bit as if static
electricity gets into the mix at the end of a tell.

It's possible that many mystics vanished.
They disappeared into the midst of the mist.

Transcending the material/physical worlds,
they flowered and dropped their skins.

For they no longer kneaded them.

Cling can be what static induces.

Perhaps a tuner can use some fine-tuning.

Then again, a Bodhisattva might be simply fine,
no matter how serious or light-hearted in time.

For the Great Awakening awaits and has
no weight to bring ones such as those down.

Back to earth is just as sound.
It makes no difference for many.

When they play their cards without any tells.
Their there is simply no telling.

Their here can be anywhere at all.
All in all. And their now is always the Present.

[{:-])))]

Quite often history repeats itself in advance.

People who have been on various paths
encounter vast intersections from first to last.

When at last one is first that too doesn't last.
For the two are no longer. Nor even oddly is one.

Cycles cycle and cyclists know their wheels.
How thirty spokes go when spoken.

And where an axle is to be found.

In the center is said to be a form.
A form of emptiness when put into words.

And, at times, beyond time, maps transform
what were words into a picture.

Thru a looking glass mirror is a house.
And throwing stones might break or unbreak a spell.

As various energies level seek
their own. Along the Way.

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/25/2016 5:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

> Which would be a change, part of "whatever we conceive them to be". My
> point was that all religions do work for a few people. So the rest of
> us must be lacking some basic understanding.

I believe, without scientific evidence, that
the human mind is built in a certain way
and works in a certain way, so that some
factors help it come together and make
its host become together, and that this
coming together in harmony of the various
faculties is called "it works". This
confluence and convergence works in
disregard to specific content, but by dint
of the cooperation between the human
mind and such factors, with any content
involved serving as mere enabler, mere
carrier. I am aware that such attempt at
explanation tends to be circular and
tautological, but it is how the human mind
works: to me it works in vicious circles
and virtuous circles. Honesty to oneself,
openness to oneself constitute a virtuous
circle that strengthens itself, and
dishonesty to oneself and closedness to
oneself constitute a vicious circle that
also reinforces itself.

Such factors to me are concentration,
mindfulness, insight, the attempt of mind
to penetrate itself, faith (which is simply
faith in the possibility that the methods
followed will work, and not faith in any
content), and again, a tautology: the
endeavour of mind to bring itself together
in general and in all particulars, insofar as
mind is capable. This array of factors is to
me independent of any specific content,
and it merely is favoured by some
religions, perhaps all religions, more or
less, though some religions do enjoy an
advantage, in that they focus directly and
intentionally on such factors, with the
content serving as mere vessel, mere
embodiment (spirit comes to flesh), even
as mere embellishment. Some religions
go so far as to bend themselves
backward to negate themselves (the Raft,
the fishtrap), and explicitly command the
release of themselves when their job is
done. Some religions explicitly indulge in
contradictions, just to make themselves
and their followers aware that any
pronouncement is partial, temporary,
conventional and not final, not absolute.
They overtly present themselves as the
mediation that transcends itself and
suppresses itself (Hegel: die sich selbst
aufhebende Vermittlung) from the start.
They are built to undercut themselves as
they go along, mere means and not the
end.

Well, I have expanded perhaps too much
on a hunch, a flight of fancy not based on
scientific evidence. I should stop and
apologise for the overextended badinage.

Tang Huyen

[{:-])))]

Tang wrote:

>On 8/25/2016 5:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>
>> Which would be a change, part of "whatever we conceive them to be". My
>> point was that all religions do work for a few people. So the rest of
>> us must be lacking some basic understanding.
>
>I believe, without scientific evidence, that
>the human mind is built in a certain way
>and works in a certain way, so that some
>factors help it come together and make
>its host become together,

Host. Mind. What manner of duality is this?

Does one carve to uncarve?

Take apart the puzzle to put it together again?

Of course. Naturally. That's why jig-saws dance
and sing and march the tunes of their different drummers.

>and that this
>coming together in harmony of the various
>faculties is called "it works".

Children play.
Some play hide and seek.

They are said to know the Way.

Wu-xin. Wu-hsin.
Such jargon surfaces at times in mind.

To see the picture on the jig-saw puzzle box,
first, get rid of mind, if one doesn't mind.

Then, bricks are no longer blocks.
And a mirror has no dust to be a mote nor a beam
to land and take hold. To grasp and release.

To have a beam in one's eye and to sigh
is not as good as to be on a beam in the balance.

>This array of factors is to
>me independent of any specific content,
>and it merely is favoured by some
>religions, perhaps all religions, more or
>less, though some religions do enjoy an
>advantage, in that they focus directly and
>intentionally on such factors, with the
>content serving as mere vessel, mere
>embodiment (spirit comes to flesh), even
>as mere embellishment.

Each member of the body has its requirements.

Some people are the heads. Some are the hands.
In this, so-called, mystical body, each part
plays its part in the symphony of all.

All in all, all goes all in.

Then, the jig-saw puzzle becomes a card game.

> Some religions
>go so far as to bend themselves
>backward to negate themselves (the Raft,
>the fishtrap), and explicitly command the
>release of themselves when their job is
>done.

The task of a great therapist is to get rid of clients.
A good doctor wants to get rid of patients.

Healthy people don't need no religion,
nor spirituality. They're too busy living life.

They can be said to be having a ball.
Some have at least two.

Such a saying can be off the w'all.

>Some religions explicitly indulge in
>contradictions, just to make themselves
>and their followers aware that any
>pronouncement is partial, temporary,
>conventional and not final, not absolute.
>They overtly present themselves as the
>mediation that transcends itself and
>suppresses itself (Hegel: die sich selbst
>aufhebende Vermittlung) from the start.
>They are built to undercut themselves as
>they go along, mere means and not the
>end.

Taoism can be a merry go
on a round and round down a stream of thoughts.

>Well, I have expanded perhaps too much
>on a hunch, a flight of fancy not based on
>scientific evidence. I should stop and
>apologise for the overextended badinage.

Hey, Rocky!

- a winkle of the bull in a wrinkle ironing out

[Kitty P]

"Wilson" wrote in message news:npki9s$uhc$1...@dont-email.me...

------------------

Pray tell what is illegal about giving speeches to wall street? What is
illegal about receiving fees for book tours? I'm not quite sure what the
problem is and giving speeches and getting large amounts of money from a
variety of speeches- but it's also true that wall street hates her. There
are liberals like Soros has a super pac for her...but the majority of wall
street individuals have and continue to donate money to defeat her...a LOT
of money. That leads to at least flirting with the idea that in those
speeches she really was calling for a consumer protection financial bureau
before it was created.

What concerns me is Trump has been named in 3500 lawsuits - a lot of them
for stiffing people. Last count was over 70 new ones since he started
running for president. There is evidence that a Trump building was built by
off the books Polish illegals who weren't getting paid. He says it was a
contractor and he says didn't know - so one has to take him at his word
without a conviction. You know....JUST LIKE Clinton.

We actually could go on all day. But without actual showing of wrong doing -
which could still happen - I'm not getting the outrage of republicans who
would also have gone on book tours and received money if they needed to
build up funds to run for President...which is a billion dollar endeavor, I
imagine they would call it clever if it were someone they wanted. It's weird
Wilson. The stupidity of politics in general actually.

[noname]

Tang Huyen <tang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/2016 5:18 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>
>> Which would be a change, part of "whatever we conceive them to be". My
>> point was that all religions do work for a few people. So the rest of
>> us must be lacking some basic understanding.
>
> I believe, without scientific evidence, that
> the human mind is built in a certain way
> and works in a certain way,

Personally it is my best working hypothesis that no two human minds are
built in the same way, that the appearances of similarity between how minds
work, how bodies work, what bodies look like, pretty much everything about
people that seems "the same", is the result of convergent evolution, and
further, that evolution itself occurs only within individuals, and within a
single lifetime.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/25/2016 7:46 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

> The overextension being your suggestion that religions work to the
> extent that they facilitate buddhist understanding.

My bias is that Stoicism, Daoism and Buddhism
share a basic worldview, which is found in parts
of the three Religions of the Book, though in
lesser concentration. It is, further, that Stoicism,
Daoism and Buddhism advocate an impersonal,
natural worldview which weaves the natural and
supernatural, independent of any person,
including their putative founders. The Logos
(reason), Way (Dao) and Law (Dharma) that
respectively run the world transcend any
personality, however impressive (or
unimpressive). The three Religions of the Book
bind their message to persons, however lofty,
and nothing is above such persons, specially
any impersonal abstraction like the Logos, Way
(Dao) and Law (Dharma). My bias is that what
works in the three Religions of the Book is the
same as what works in Stoicism, Daoism and
Buddhism, namely the set of factors that
constitute mental culture in Stoicism, Daoism
and Buddhism.

Christianity borrows massively from Stoicism,
and the great Theologians like Augustine and
Thomas build their theology on Stoicism, but
cover it up with Jewish mythology for
respectability, to protect the innocent. In
recent times, the Roman Catholic Church
adopts Buddhist meditative technique en
masse. Eastern Orthodoxy has always been
quite subservient to Neoplatonism, which is a
slightly revised version of Stoicism. Both
major branches of Christianity, east and west,
worship the Pseudo-Dionysius, who was a
Syrian forger in the sixth century and disciple
of the last Neoplatonists, Proclus and
Damascius, ardent anti-Christian pagans. So
there should be much absorbtion of Stoicism
in Christianity, if my reconstruction is in any
way valid.

Tang Huyen

[djinn]

"{:-])))" wrote in message
news:l60urb9a0pc8ggr7j...@4ax.com...

>Well, I have expanded perhaps too much
>on a hunch, a flight of fancy not based on
>scientific evidence. I should stop and
>apologise for the overextended badinage.

>Hey, Rocky!

>- a winkle of the bull in a wrinkle ironing out

no that was "badenov", boris. frostbite falls
minnesota. accompanied by natasha fatale,
answering to fearless leader and obsessed
with moose and squirrel.

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/25/2016 8:38 AM, djinn wrote:

> "{:-])))" (JayLo):

>> Well, I have expanded perhaps too much
>> on a hunch, a flight of fancy not based on
>> scientific evidence. I should stop and
>> apologise for the overextended badinage.
>>
>> Hey, Rocky!
>>
>> - a winkle of the bull in a wrinkle ironing out

> no that was "badenov", boris. frostbite falls
> minnesota. accompanied by natasha fatale,
> answering to fearless leader and obsessed
> with moose and squirrel.

A free voyage wound the world on the
wing of mere words on the screen, in
the fold of burrows.

Tang Huyen

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/25/2016 9:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

> And you say the christianity adopts this in its adoption of stoic
> ideas.
>
> This adoption appears large from the stoic point of view I suspect.
> From the christian point of view, not so large. Christians certainly
> don't have a world view that weaves the natural and supernatural
> independent of christ.
>
> In daoism and buddhism also not so large, I suspect even though you
> can point to ideas in each that would suggest a largeness. Buddhists
> tend to world view their founder, for instance. Maybe even more than
> he thought wise.

It is funny that in recent times, China has
been trying (quite half-heartedly) to move
away from a polity based on persons (e. g.,
Mao) to a polity based on abstract principles
(e. g., the constitution, rules and laws). The
three Religions of the Book are based on
persons, and do not admit any abstract
principles (e. g., morality) independent of
persons. Therefore all three certainly don't
have a world view that weaves the natural
and supernatural independent of their
founders, real or mythical, individual or
collective.

As to Buddhism, there is always the tension
between purity and reality, where the latter
requires going along with the world for the
survival of the religion, namely Buddhism.
Such accommodation of worldly ways
threatens to corrupt the presumed pristine
purity of the Law (Dharma), but the latter
would not survive beyond two or three
generations save for the former. One
famous example is the prohibition to
monks of handling money. It is beautiful
morality, but impractical in real life. After
all, the Law is to be lived in real life. This
friction between the ideal and the real is
never going to go away.

Regardless of the differences between the
two orientations, which to me are mental
orientations, my bias is that what works is
impersonal and natural, with the
supernatural serving as frill, for the
edification of the masses, even of the
sincere practitioners who can well forego
it in favour of the mere natural. Of course,
as I confess, my bias is not backed up by
any scientific evidence, even if it looks
self-evident to me, but here my excessive
universalisation can well mess with my
objectivity. (All proportions kept, excessive
universalisation can to me be easily
observed in Augustine, who reasons
mostly in Stoic patterns and tropes, whilst
covering them up with themes of Jewish
mythology for public consumption).

Tang Huyen

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/25/2016 10:25 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

> And that is another place where "sameness" must break down for
> christianity anyway. Zen does say that mystical (supernatural)
> experience should be ignored because it is a distraction from the task
> at hand. Which means that a comparison of tasks would perhaps be
> useful for stoic/zen comparisons.
>
> The world is full of people for whom the supernatural is the essence
> and impersonal/natural is the frill. Of course these are mental
> orientations. One does not invalidate the other. Neither are they
> the same. In fact, the ultimate reality might be something else
> entirely that we simply don't have a mental orientation for.

For the east-west comparison, Stoicism is a
necessary lever, as it is amazingly close to
Daoism and Buddhism, though its technique
is sparser. And two late Stoics, Madame
Guyon and her student Fénelon, are essential
in this sweeping comparison, which is based
on patterns of thought, even if content of
thought plays a role. The two French thinkers
are amazingly close to Daoism and Buddhism,
right down to their imagery. They also
proclaim that the end is beyond the means,
beyond thought and language. This kind of
orientation is strictly prohibited in Christianity
in general and Roman Catholicism in
particular. I find near-exact cloning of
Buddhist and Daoist scriptures, including the
Heart scripture, though at their time and
place, very little is known of Daoism and
Buddhism. But a priori reintuition and
recomposition are great tools of the human
mind, and if something has been discovered
by the human mind somewhere, it is bound
to be rediscovered somewhere else, in full
(or near-full) independence of the prior
instances, in spite of differences in
language, custom, culture, religions, etc.,
all of which are mere ways for the human
mind to clothe itself. It is the same human
mind in its various expressions, based on
the same patterns.

As the Christian fundies like to say, that
way is the way it works, like it or not. I
dumbly repeat after them, that way is the
way it (the human mind) works, like it or not.
That is the rationale for my universalisation.

Tang Huyen

[brian mitchell]

Tang Huyen wrote:

>On 8/24/2016 4:24 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>
>> A hint of what we don't understand: we want mystical benefits,
>> whatever we conceive them to be, while remaining as we are.
>
>Again, to borrow from djinn from some years
>ago:
>
><<when you "attain" that absolute viewpoint,
>so to speak, you understand with full conviction
>that you are perfect, whole and complete as
>you are and you don't "need" anything. this is
>why when ramana maharshi got a big dose of
>awakening he just laid down in a cave and was
>willing to surrender even his life to his divine
>acumen until villagers fed him and built him an
>ashram so he could teach.>>
>
>Many practitioners of mental culture aspire to
>fancy mystical states or whatever, and scarcely
>understand that mental culture is to help them
>come to peace with themselves and reconcile
>with themselves, so that they don't need

>anything any more...

A case of the bland leading the bland?

[{:-])))]

It sounds valid and it might be sound.

How sound it is depends on premises taken for granted.

If some guy actually walked on water, and time changed,
such that there was a reset to zero, on calendars worldwide,
and reverberations of that continue unto this day, then,
it could be there was an age that is with the world
and in the world, yet not of the world, in a way.

That age may have set with the Sun on an empire
whose commonwealth explanded out to be many nations,
as it was said it would, back in the daze.

Once upon a time-frame.

When the Line of Demarcation divided Earth in two
still the Isles kept silent, as they were commanded to do.

Perhaps they had heard Isaiah's report.
Yet then again, who can say for sure.
With and without eyes to sail to sea.
Waves may break without a sound.
While even the deaf may feel it.
On and beneath their grounds.

Of the dregs found
within a cup of Joe.

[{:-])))]

Tang wrote:

> It is the same human
>mind in its various expressions, based on
>the same patterns.

It is all the same stardust, gathering together,
in a cave, and grooving with a pict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrRhnaFaBsA

- not sure which one is which

[daletx]

Who paid Hillary how much worries me a lot less than how much Trump
owes...and who he owes it to.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html?_r=0

DT

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/25/2016 12:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

> Since as you say, it is simply a matter of mental orientation, it
> isn't a surprise that people in different parts of the world had the
> same thought, if they did. I suspect the correspondence adds
> authenticity to the idea while loosening dogmatic restrictions for
> you.
>
> It might be more fruitful to compare the zen tasks, that might be
> distracted from by the supernatural, with stoic tasks, than to notice
> that both discount the supernatural. Does stoicism have provide tasks
> with specific self modification in mind? It might be true that in the
> end the zen devotee realizes that no modification was necessary, but
> again the tasks were undertaken to bring him to that realization. I
> also suspect that realization would not be the only difference.

Stoicism is famous for its tasks with specific
self modification in mind. Pierre Hadot wrote
a French book on them. The famous Stoic
masters, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius,
etc. teach tasks of mental culture that are
very close to those in Buddhism and
Stoicism, though at a lesser level of technicity.
Eastern Orthodoxy has tons of such tasks,
derived from Neoplatonism and perhaps from
contact with Indian yoga (Hinduist?
Buddhist?) The founder of Neoplatonism,
Plotinus, went on a Greek war expedition in
the Near East and met with Indian
gymnosophists (yogi from Buddhism?
Hinduism?), so there may be direct
influence from India, and Eastern Orthodoxy
has much that resembles Indian yoga. Roman
Catholicism strongly objects to such Eastern
Orthodox yoga-like self-induction of ecstasy,
for it only admits of God's grace in such
ecstasy.

Stoicism takes God to be the universal, the
only universal, and as such we are parts and
parcels of him, therefore we are already
whole and perfect just as we are, but this
thought is more implicit than explicit, though
advocates of passivity like Madame Guyon
and Fénelon want us to let us be acted on by
God and thus be God himself, in the absence
of ourselves to interfere with him. The only
modification from our side then is to abstain
from ourselves in favour of God, who then
acts us, in our stead, and that is all we need
to do, namely to leave ourselves vacant for
God to do what he wants by way of us as his
mere vessels. This is one valid (albeit rare)
take of Stoicism, which is amazingly close to
much Daoism (and some versions of
Buddhism).

You said:

<<The world is full of people for whom the
supernatural is the essence and
impersonal/natural is the frill. Of course
these are mental orientations. One does
not invalidate the other. Neither are they
the same. In fact, the ultimate reality might
be something else entirely that we simply
don't have a mental orientation for.>>

I don't know whether you are aware, but
you have implicitly embraced an
anti-Jewish mythology position, because
in Jewish mythology, it (Jewish tradition)
is not a mental orientation, but a mere
expression of reality, more explicitly the
way God expresses himself, in full rigour
and for real, and not in a symbolic or
idealist manner. It is as brutally realist
and literalist as Communism, like with
our friend Niunian, who is both a
Communist and a Christian.

Tang Huyen

[Wilson]

Again, you're right. As long as there isn't a documented quid pro quo,
there's no illegality.

But it sure does look hinkey.

As to who Wall Street likes and hates, you're reading from an old
playbook.

"According to the WSJ, in March, 53 percent of her donations came from
Wall Street executives, while her main rival on the Republican side,
Donald Trump, received less than 1 percent of his donations individuals
related to the stock exchange."

https://panampost.com/orlando-avendano/2016/05/10/clinton-wall-street-favorite-candidate/

As of July this year, Clinton has $48.5M in hedge fund backing, compared
to Trump's $19K.

[Wilson]

Real estate loans.

"Allen Weisselberg, chief financial officer of the Trump Organization,
said that Mr. Trump could have left the liability section on the form
blank, because federal law requires that presidential candidates
disclose personal liabilities, not corporate debt. Mr. Trump, he said,
has no personal debt.

"We overdisclosed," Mr. Weisselberg said, explaining that it was decided
that when a Trump company owned 100 percent of a property, all of the
associated debt would be disclosed, something that he said went beyond
what the law required."

[Ned]

Whoa... Does this mean that Trump DOESN'T disclose any debt on a property
he has less than 100% ownership? Because that would be most of his stuff,
including all those RUSSIAN loans his companies have.

Ned

[daletx]

So the fact that Trump's company owes money to Deutsche Bank and the
Bank of China isn't a problem, but if those same banks had donated to
the Clinton Foundation, that *would* be a problem.

Interesting application of the ol' double standard.

DT

[Kitty P]

"Wilson" wrote in message news:npprf4$e31$1...@dont-email.me...

--------------

I wonder if it occurs to folks that since the markets are very much tied to
administrations, that even wall street is a little afraid of what Trump
might do? If he felt that he could get acclaim from nuking North Korea and
starting a nuclear war - do you think he'd do it? That would sort of would
muck up the markets a bit.

[Wilson]

On 8/27/2016 10:32 AM, Kitty P wrote:
> "Wilson" wrote in message news:npprf4$e31$1...@dont-email.me...

Hmmm. So first you said that those eeeevilll Wall Street Banksters
appreciate and support Trump. I guess because he is a kindred soul? Now
you say that they don't like Trump because he is stupid and dangerous.

A scenario for every season!

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/27/2016 9:35 AM, Wilson wrote:

> A scenario for every season!

How many times has Trump shifted
on immigration? Every five minutes?

Tang Huyen

[Kitty P]

"Wilson" wrote in message news:npsfg5$4rr$1...@dont-email.me...

-------------

I have never believed that all wall street or bankers are bad. Mustn't lump
people into categories. I didn't say they supported Trump - I just said that
the progressive folks like Soros do not and ta da - that is where the money
is coming from.

[liaM]

On the general theme of who is bad and who is worse... I'm shook up. I
have just watched a youtube by a historian who detailed the way France
colonised Algeria c. 1830 onwards. One might think it couldn't have
been worse that what the Spanish did to the Incas or the Anglo
conquerors of America to the Indians, but it was.. and much worse.
There was a systematic armed conquest of the Berbers and Arabs with
genocide as the tool of conquest, wiping out whole villages and taking
deed of the fertile farmland that the population lived on. What did I
learn ? Men and children were killed. Women were traded for horses or
sold. There was a bounty on each set of ears of a native. And this
continued through the 19th century, ratcheted in stages - such as when
almost a million Alsatian French were settled in Algeria and offered
land. Arabs and Berbers were allowed to live only on condition they
were so beat down as to grovel before their masters like dogs.

Well I say, fuck history. If it was worse then, as it was in Bosnia.
It was worse in Guatamala and Nicaragua. It was worse in Vietnam.
I now understand the dogged struggle of the North Koreans to
keep the gringos off their doorstep. Our wonderful freedom is an
illusion bought on the backs of the suffering of nameless others.
Let's see what Brexits, Burkinis, Trumps, Clintons, etc. etc. have in
store for us. Can't be anything worse than the worse the past has seen.
Worse than worse is worse.

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/27/2016 4:30 PM, liaM wrote:

> Arabs and Berbers were allowed to live only on condition they
> were so beat down as to grovel before their masters like dogs.
>

> [snip]

>
> Let's see what Brexits, Burkinis, Trumps, Clintons, etc. etc. have in
> store for us. Can't be anything worse than the worse the past has seen.
> Worse than worse is worse.

I have much to admire in the French culture,
but get startled when I read French Catholics.
They are massively influenced by an Algerian,
Augustine, who was Professor of Rhetoric at
Rome before becoming the bishop of Hippo in
present-day Algeria. They like to quote him,
specially this famous passage, City of God,
XIV, 28:

"We see two societies as the result of two
loves: earthly society with a self-love to the
extent of despising God, and heavenly
society with a love of God to the extent of
despising self (Fecerunt itaque civitates duas
amores duo; terrenam scilicet amor sui
usque ad contemptum Dei, coelestem vero
amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui)."

They are so beat down as to grovel before
their master, the Jewish Yahweh, like dogs,
and this, in eternity.

Earlier, I mentioned that Catholics object
to Eastern Orthodox meditators who claim
to be able to induce ecstasy from their own
side, and the reason is that this ability
broaches God's sole ability, as men are too
corrupt to attain ecstasy by themselves.
The Catholics take this claim to fall in the
sin of pride, a reproach that they also make
to Stoics, with the implication that only God
can be proud.

Tang Huyen

[Sanford M. Manley]

On 08/27/2016 7:30 PM, liaM wrote:
> On the general theme of who is bad and who is worse... I'm shook up. I
> have just watched a youtube by a historian who detailed the way France
> colonised Algeria c. 1830 onwards. One might think it couldn't have
> been worse that what the Spanish did to the Incas or the Anglo
> conquerors of America to the Indians, but it was.. and much worse.
> There was a systematic armed conquest of the Berbers and Arabs with
> genocide as the tool of conquest, wiping out whole villages and taking
> deed of the fertile farmland that the population lived on. What did I
> learn ? Men and children were killed. Women were traded for horses or
> sold. There was a bounty on each set of ears of a native. And this
> continued through the 19th century, ratcheted in stages - such as when
> almost a million Alsatian French were settled in Algeria and offered
> land. Arabs and Berbers were allowed to live only on condition they
> were so beat down as to grovel before their masters like dogs.
>
> Well I say, fuck history. If it was worse then, as it was in Bosnia. It
> was worse in Guatamala and Nicaragua. It was worse in Vietnam.
> I now understand the dogged struggle of the North Koreans to
> keep the gringos off their doorstep. Our wonderful freedom is an
> illusion bought on the backs of the suffering of nameless others.
> Let's see what Brexits, Burkinis, Trumps, Clintons, etc. etc. have in
> store for us. Can't be anything worse than the worse the past has seen.
> Worse than worse is worse.

Worst of all is the Belgian Congo... look that one up.

--
Sanford

[Sanford M. Manley]

On 08/27/2016 10:59 PM, Tang Huyen wrote:
> I have much to admire in the French culture,
> but get startled when I read French Catholics.
> They are massively influenced by an Algerian,
> Augustine, who was Professor of Rhetoric at
> Rome before becoming the bishop of Hippo in
> present-day Algeria.

So right before the communion, those with
Augustine are Hungry, Hungry Hippos?

--
Sanford

[Julian]

Brexit is key to the end of the anti-democratic EU and
thus key to any possible long term peace and prosperity
in continental Europe.

[Tang Huyen]

On 8/28/2016 3:18 AM, Sanford M. Manley wrote:

> So right before the communion, those with
> Augustine are Hungry, Hungry Hippos?

Hungry, and hung to match. Horses
for the course.

Tang Huyen

[Kitty P]

"Julian" wrote in message news:npueue$ne2$1...@dont-email.me...

---------------

We're all watching to see what happens. I for one hope that you're right. I
don't think it will work out quite that way - but if it does it could become
a model as a sort of post globalization economy.

But let's be honest here. The western countries are a actually a bunch of
horrific whiners. We whine if we don't have enough money for the top smart
phone plan or new cars. We whine if we have to rent and not buy a house. And
yes, some of us women whine if we don't get equal pay for equal work or have
limited family planning facilities. But with all of that, even with the
homeless - we live in heaven compared to so many other non-developed
countries I've visited or have friends living and working. The U.S. isn't
suffering. There actually is work for anyone who wants it and the
unemployment rate is lower than a heck of a long time. Incomes are growing
too slow - but there is an income to begin with. Whiners. Hell, even the
hysteria over American Muslims and Hispanics is whining and worse -
scapegoating.

How about the UK? Do you have rampant homelessness and high unemployment?
Are people unable to access healthcare and live with open sewers and no
potable water? Are people dying on the streets daily?

[Julian]

If it doesn't work out that way it won't be the UK's fault but rather
that of the non elected EU bureaucrats who weren't prepared to
compromise with democracy.

Also it will be seen to be a proactive move by the UK to stand alone
as it was in WWII where had the UK been lost to the Nazis there would
have been no possible means of defeating them as there would have been
nowhere from which to launch the liberation of Europe.

[liaM]

So you still labor under the illusion that democracy is better?
Or that democracy's levers are actuated by the people, and not by
cross-border multi-national corporations and oligarchs?
Thats why the EU is essential when it comes to cross-border
policing.. imo, of course :)

[Julian]

Why is it better that the losers in a democratic process, nearly all the
powerful officers of the EU are people rejected by the ballot box,
rather than winners have the power no matter how flawed the democratic
process?

> Or that democracy's levers are actuated by the people, and not by
> cross-border multi-national corporations and oligarchs?
> Thats why the EU is essential when it comes to cross-border
> policing.. imo, of course :)

The EU is lousy at cross-border policing.
Even close neighbours like France and Belgium are hopeless
as responsibility falls into the black hole of the EU.

[liaM]

Supra border policing was meant. Rules applying to multi-national
corporations and member states. Overseeing mega corporations such as
Monsanto, Microsoft, Google, VW.. limiting their scope when
appropriate; the same as to member states whose policies threaten
the welfare of the entire EU, such as the tax policies of Ireland
or national budgets above treaty limits (3%).

Do you see what was meant? Nothing as pertain to policing crazies that
want to bomb people because of some sort crackpot religion.
people

[Kitty P]

"Julian" wrote in message news:npuvt0$dnv$1...@dont-email.me...

==========

It really is an interesting stance when you put it that way. But have they
figured out how they are going to do international trade? It sounded like
the whole vote and outcome was a little bit of a surprise. I think I read
you all have 2 years?

It's a knee jerk reaction from Trump supporters and a certain amount of the
left to disengage from all trade agreements. I can see how Brexit happened -
although do you think the UK population is sophisticated to understand the
full reasons and ramifications of their vote? I'm only asking because I
wonder daily if the U.S. population is able to comprehend anything if it
takes over three sentences to explain it.

[Julian]

The last time I looked Ireland was a full member of the EU and
the Euro. That it can lawfully follow policies that can "threaten
the welfare of the entire EU" must surely be a consequence
of faulty design of the EU and Euro?

The EU and the Euro are a ongoing disaster and should be
eliminated as soon as possible and only then might we build
a true MUTUAL aid construction that benefits ALL fairly.

I'm not saying that is possible but it is impossible while
the current France and Germany aid society exists.

[Julian]

We have 2 years once we choose to trigger the process.
Once we have our ducks in a row 2 years will be ample.
Meanwhile the is an actual queue of countries keen to
strike trade deals with the UK. Such deals are a piece
cake compared to the attempts of the EU to strike trade
deals.. some of which haven't been managed after a decade
of cat herding.

[Julian]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/single-currency-experiment-has-been-a-disaster-admits-nobel-priz/

[Kitty P]

"Julian" wrote in message news:nq1j96$ne5$1...@dont-email.me...

-----------------

We are being told that if the the EU breaks up and if the TPP doesn't take
place, that China will somehow take over trade. I try to follow how that all
works, but can't grasp why. It isn't like countries can't still plan
together to address the bigger issues without having to be in lock step. But
we were also told in U.S. media that Brexit was sold to so many people
because it was actually about keeping immigrants out. It is something that
Trump supporters want as well. Interestingly enough, the most vehement
supporter in the U.S. is Sarah Palin. Last time I was in Alaska I didn't see
hordes of Mexican's storming their borders and in fact there are 5%
Hispanic and 3% black. I defy anyone to tell me she isn't a bigot. But was
that an issue in the UK?

I don't know anyone except you who thought Brexit was a good idea and trust
U.S. or U.K. media about as far as I can spit.

[Julian]

The technical term for that is propaganda.

> I try to follow how
> that all works, but can't grasp why. It isn't like countries can't still
> plan together to address the bigger issues without having to be in lock
> step. But we were also told in U.S. media that Brexit was sold to so
> many people because it was actually about keeping immigrants out.

There are many Brexit supporter like me who are in favour of
immigration... we just want to take the most skilled and most needy
as opposed to cheap labour for businesses that undermines the position
of the already poorest paid UK workers.

Being governed by non elected people who are not
the Queen is the major factor.

It is
> something that Trump supporters want as well. Interestingly enough, the
> most vehement supporter in the U.S. is Sarah Palin. Last time I was in
> Alaska I didn't see hordes of Mexican's storming their borders and in
> fact there are 5% Hispanic and 3% black. I defy anyone to tell me she
> isn't a bigot. But was that an issue in the UK?
>
> I don't know anyone except you who thought Brexit was a good idea

I guess you don't know anyone else like me. :)

> and trust U.S. or U.K. media about as far as I can spit.

That's a bit ambiguous.... Personally I don't trust any media
however there are individual writers that I do trust having
read them over a number of years or decades.

I guess you don't know anyone else like me. :)

[Julian]

ps. There were around 17 million people who voted for Brexit.
That was the highest vote for any issue ever in the UK.

[Kitty P]

"Julian" wrote in message news:nq1js6$q5c$1...@dont-email.me...

----------------

That was interesting - I should have read farther down the thread before
asking my questions. That fella seems to know what he's talking about. But I
still don't know 'why' free immigration between countries didn't work.
People move freely in the U.S. - but then again the currency works and
although not a homogenous society - it has one form of government rather
than a gaggle of them like the EU.

I agree with Awaken that the totality of the economic system is designed to
keep the wealth wealthier. But on the state level, it's a different dynamic
and different models. Oregon found that the economy might be improved by
addressing what the businesses said they needed. The top thing was training,
especially basic skills and also less hard drug addicted applicants. So
Oregon offers two years of free technical or collegiate education which is
satisfying new industries, and new funding streams like taxing legal
marijuana and to stop prosecuting that particular drug. Part of the taxation
money is going toward treating harder drugs - but in the baby stages so far.
The taxation has brought in three times more revenue than they expected and
the cost of arresting and prosecuting for marijuana is no longer a drain on
the local and state budgets.

From the executive summary of this year's economic analysis for Oregon:
"Oregon continues to see full-throttle rates of growth. Job gains are
outpacing the typical state as are wages for
Oregon workers. The state’s economy is quickly approaching full employment,
or a healthy labor market. Such a
milestone has not been seen since 2000. Encouragingly, underemployment, or
those involuntarily working part time
in Oregon is back to pre-Great Recession rates. Given the ongoing economic
strength in Oregon, the
economic outlook has been raised relative to recent forecasts. The state is
now expected to maintain these full throttle
rates of growth through the end of 2017 before longer-run demographics weigh
on the outlook".

Conservatives have fought this for a long time and it took electing a
progressive state legislature and governor to make this happen. Who knows if
it will work into the future. At present, Oregon happily gives jobs,
education, and medical care to Hispanic immigrants who pick fruits and
vegetables - jobs difficult to fill and they also pay taxes which is why
their employers aren't raided btw. Hispanic crime being higher is a myth of
the worse kind in the U.S. Which is why the present scapegoating is absurd.

The demographics of the future may change the outlook - but for right now it
shows a different approach to economic issues.

[Julian]

Another aspect of the problem of free migration is the damage
done to the countries people are emigrating from...

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/serbia-suffers-brain-drain-as-medical-workers-go-west-01-25-2016

[daletx]

But, Kitty, how can that be? "One third of all federal prisoners today
are illegal immigrants."

Or not:
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/aug/25/lamar-smith/mostly-false-lamar-smith-claim-one-third-federal-i/

DT

[Kitty P]

"Julian" wrote in message news:nq46g4$l27$1...@dont-email.me...

------------

Wow - it's true, I can't find anyone else out of that 17 million to talk to
heh Probably a personal issue. But yes Julian, you are right - I don't know
anyone quite like you.

[Kitty P]

"Julian" wrote in message news:nq4b46$61q$1...@dont-email.me...

----------------

That's something we don't think about. Although Serbia is probably in the
top 5 countries I wouldn't want to live so kind of wonder if the why being a
little more than economics.

[liaM]

You're too young, and Gospadi pamili, you're a Christian Serb who
thinks cross-border intervention to correct deviance (i.e. federalism)
is obscene ? But that's what federalism is good for. Europeans
no longer wanted to see tribes with blood-shot eyes torturing and
slaying each other. Europe without borders was created to avoid
cross-border wars on a continent where atavisms simmer below the surface.

As to the Euro, as I was starting to say, you're probably too young
to remember the hassle of working and traveling in Europe having to
negotiate 27 different currencies. The euro is a boon for commerce;
the rules of its use result in an even playing field for all to share
and prosper with. It's been a great success.

[liaM]

:-(

[Julian]

Yes, it has done wonders for Greece.

[Julian]

On 30/08/2016 20:54, liaM wrote:

ps. We clearly have a different view of what "success" means...

A GDP growth rate that hardly ever reaches 1% and on average
is 0.36% is not my definition of success.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/gdp-growth

[Julian]

Comparing it to the growth of EU GDP the Euro zone GDP growth
has actually been a disaster.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/european-union/gdp-annual-growth-rate

a disaster...

[liaM]

Enjoy your booming UK Conservative led economy while it last.
You're obviously not the one suffering from cuts to the NHS, or
privatization of the railroads, or rise in council tax, or that has
a large family needing help.

[Julian]

I'm getting superb, free, NHS treatment for my list
of serious medical conditions, Cancer, COPD to name a couple.

Besides... the main problems of NHS financing can be traced
directly to the criminal deals initiated by Labours
Chancellor Gordon Brown.

> privatization of the railroads,

The railroads are carrying more passengers in better quality
rolling stock than at any time in history.

http://orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/email-alerts/2015/rail-passenger-journeys-reached-a-record-high-of-1.65-billion-between-2014-2015

You're old enough to remember the utter shambles that
was British Rail are you not?

> or rise in council tax,

Yes my council tax is rising but that is because I live
in a Labour controlled borough, Camden.

Were I living in an equivalent Tory controlled borough,
eg. Wandsworth, my council tax would be falling.

> or that has a large family needing help.

Having a large family is a matter of choice.
I'm not sure that other people should pick up
the bill for my lifestyle choices.

[liaM]

On 8/30/2016 10:06 PM, Julian wrote:
> Having a large family is a matter of choice.
> I'm not sure that other people should pick up
> the bill for my lifestyle choices.

Disgusting. You're so fucking selfish.

[Sanford M. Manley]

Translation: Pay for other people's bad choices.

--
Sanford

[awaken21]

Or Alternatively: Help each other through hard times that we know happen to most of us.

[liaM]

Do I understand you are a member of the select club of Republicans who
opine that only the strongest and smartest should have the right to live :)

[Sanford M. Manley]

First, I am not a Republican. Second, I believe in helping the least of
us. Third, I believe when the state takes on that role to such an
extent, the very meaning of charity is subverted as it becomes mandatory
and an entitlement, destroying all incentive to give
and to receive for the better reasons.

--
Sanford

[Julian]

I'm sorry that I didn't take the altruistic path of
having a dozen or so children that I couldn't afford
to raise myself but I'm afraid it's a little late in
the day to rectify my grievous error.

[Julian]

I/we do that anyway but I crossed the line
by expressing an opinion about it.

[Julian]

Rather that an knee-jerk emotional reaction
you've obviously thought this through...

What a cold hearted evil bastard!

[Wilson]

"Help" is voluntary.

[Wilson]

Perhaps with some extra wives you could pop out a few between now and
then.

[liaM]

Do you give money to beggars ?

[liaM]

Where tribal societies exist, "Help" is normal and not just voluntary.
Unfortunately modern societies haven't figured how to achieve
this without some one or other political group screaming bloody murder
over what normal means. Thus "normal" is often badly done, as in the US
where welfare of children often forces couples to live apart - the woman
and child receiving aid, the man thrown unmarried to the streets.

Up to now, in France, welfare has been achieved equitably for all (the
French are a great enforcers of the "Equality" part of their constitution).
Seems that this is also true in England, though I have UK friends who
have suffered grievously due to cuts in their benefits because of the
last government's mania on austerity. It looks like the new PM is
wisely steering clear of austerity on the backs of the poor.. am I
right, Julian?

[liaM]

Forgive me jabbing to see where you kept your heart. It seems that you
keep it under surveillance by your head :)

[Julian]

Not every one... do you?

I'm more inclined to give to beggars in Serbia
where there is no welfare state.

[Julian]

One wife is enough thank you very much.
One more child and then I'm done.
A legitimate one will be a novelty.

[Julian]

Rumour has it.

[Julian]

I must admit to being a little surprised that a western woman might
prefer Iran, Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and
a dozen of more Muslim states where she would be treated as a mere
possession, if she's lucky, but as they say in my birth place
"There's nowt so queer as folk."

(tr. "There is nothing quite so peculiar as people.")

Serbia is a beautiful country that is subject to profound
propaganda.

I'm not saying the people aren't a bit paranoid but considering
it's history of being world champion when it comes to being
rape, looted and pillaged... or simply bombed from 30,000 feet
with radio-active and biological warfare stuff, it's not
unwarranted.

I don't think anywhere else has had such treatment from various
empires, Roman, Turkish, Austro-Hungarian, Nazi, Soviet and
finally the US.

[liaM]

Nearly always when I have at least a euro.

[Julian]

So, same as me... not always.

How do you decide which beggar deserves your
occasional largesse?

First encountered first served?

[Wilson]

On 8/31/2016 8:12 AM, liaM wrote:
> On 8/31/2016 1:44 PM, Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/30/2016 8:49 PM, awaken21 wrote:
>>>
>>> Or Alternatively: Help each other through hard times that we know
>>> happen to most of us.
>>
>> "Help" is voluntary.
>
> Where tribal societies exist, "Help" is normal and not just voluntary.
> Unfortunately modern societies haven't figured how to achieve
> this without some one or other political group screaming bloody murder
> over what normal means. Thus "normal" is often badly done, as in the US
> where welfare of children often forces couples to live apart - the woman
> and child receiving aid, the man thrown unmarried to the streets.

If the giving isn't voluntary it's not "help", and it's certainly not
charity. It's coercion.

[awaken21]

Exactly, that's why an actual democracy is important. We have to have consensus or it's problematic.

[awaken21]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:38:30 AM UTC-4, Julian wrote:
> On 31/08/2016 17:05, liaM wrote:
> > On 8/31/2016 2:39 PM, Julian wrote:
> >> On 31/08/2016 13:56, liaM wrote:
> >>> On 8/31/2016 8:09 AM, Julian wrote:
> >>>> On 31/08/2016 01:16, liaM wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/30/2016 10:06 PM, Julian wrote:
> >>>>>> Having a large family is a matter of choice.
> >>>>>> I'm not sure that other people should pick up
> >>>>>> the bill for my lifestyle choices.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Disgusting. You're so fucking selfish.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sorry that I didn't take the altruistic path of
> >>>> having a dozen or so children that I couldn't afford
> >>>> to raise myself but I'm afraid it's a little late in
> >>>> the day to rectify my grievous error.

It's nice that you are educated enough to understand the options and implications

> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Do you give money to beggars ?
> >>
> >> Not every one... do you?
> >>
> >> I'm more inclined to give to beggars in Serbia
> >> where there is no welfare state.
> >
> >
> > Nearly always when I have at least a euro.
>
> So, same as me... not always.
>
> How do you decide which beggar deserves your
> occasional largesse?
>
> First encountered first served?

My instinctive feeling in that moment and the current state of my on hand resources..

[brian mitchell]

I notice the principle of equality, egalitarianism, is missing from
this creed.

There's also the question of scale. It's unlikely, as society is now
constituted, that charity of the heart by individuals would be
sufficient to the larger need.

And then there's the fact that charity as it is practiced can be as
subtly coercive and demeaning as any state entitlement; perhaps more
so, since the question of deserving arises.