Karl

Not to mention the denigration that I received for asking for clarity. When someone has 'an experience' that they are unable to describe in terms of existent reality, then it must be fantasy. If I tell you I had the experience of flying to New York I could describe it in terms you would recognise. You won't actually experience the flight, but you can grasp the conceptual elements. If I say I experienced heaven then you might rightly ask if I meant utmost joy, if I said that I meant Gods Kingdom then I cannot define anything except in fantasy terms. I can say ephemeral spirit clouds and Angels and we can both imagine it, but there is no connection with existent reality. I cannot say how I got there, where the place is, what the Angels were, nor how I was supported on clouds. Fantasy.

Aw yeah jump on the one asking the difficult questions. Please tell me none of you teach this stuff.

LOL I recognise words that you refuse to define for some reason that I can only assume is because you have no idea. Wisdom is being able to clearly communicate your conceptual hierachy without resorting to ad hominems. If I ask a mechanic what he means by a valve guide I don't expect him to run off the deep end complaining about amateur mechanics that think they know it all. I can only reflect that you lack of definition is because you don't wish to share, or you simply don't know.

You are talking to yourself Luke don't you remember it's me, or at least you.

And you won't find out, which will be the end of your discussion.

Because I have no intention of defending republicans nor any political party. I'm only interested in your use of sexist material which has been reproduced to incite hatred. I do not agree with that act regardless of whether it includes or does not include gay couples. The law is looking more and more like that which was practiced in Nazi Germany. You are guilty now prove your innocence. Horrifying.

Do you know it from top to bottom ? You specifically said Trumps personal tax submission and not his companies tax submission. Trump doesn't fill in a different one to everyone else. Here is how it works. A company keeps books and from those books accountants prepare the official accounts. These are then signed off by the BoD as a true record and submitted to the tax office. The submission itself can be large, but it is nothing like the information contained in the books. The tax office chooses to audit some companies and can do so virtually at will. A large team of tax specialists and accountants decend on the head office and begin comparing the signed off accounts with the books. Any errors are noted and if there is sufficient doubt about the numbers it can lead to a forensic study followed by court action. Meanwhile Trump is a director of the business and holds a portion of the shares. He receives a directors income and a dividend. If He has other income earning assets these are shown separately. No doubt his wife will be part of the team so it will be Mr and Mrs Trump. That's literally all you will get. The only reason Trump might refuse his tax returns to be shown is that he is afraid of the comments of the idiots who will note he doesn't currently pay any tax because of the losses he incurred on which he had already paid tax.

Oh you don't have to apologise for writing beyond my experience, I like a good fiction fantasy. Let me know next time as I don't waste time.

Yes but collateralised in total. I don't know what you think you would discover ? This is a sample right ? https://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/1040a.pdf You can get shares and earnings, but it's almost like reading the back of a book. The gist of it is there, but no fine detail. If you wanted to know who his creditors and debtors were then you would need access to the books themselves.

No,no, no Mr Ralis, this is not about your own spreading of feminist propaganda. I knew there was something fishy about a 'violence against women act'. It didn't take long to discover more inverted sexism and the blatent crushing of due process. These acts, like black lives matter, are specifically named to prevent disagreement and then used in retrospect as clubs of shame. Who can possibly object to 'black lives matter' or the prevention of 'violence against women' ? Everybody wants those things right ? How could any right thinking person object. Of course once the real motive is discovered and the act is not passed, then the sexist can show the evidence that 'those senators voted against protecting women from violence' what sort of monsters must they be. Oh I know they are rapist men. As you delight in taking people to task for anything you consider mildly racist-which I regard as you playing with faux concern-I hold your post in the highest contemp of blatent bigotry and with intent to incite hatred.

Yes, but there isn't anything pertinent in a tax return other than earnings and tax. What does your own tax return have on it ? Trump will have bigger numbers, but other than that you cannot learn anything. Auditing is comparing books to filed accounts. From the filed accounts come the individuals tax returns. Until the accounts are filed/completed its impossible to fill in the tax return. It's also in retrospect, so, depending on the dates and laws, you won't get this years tax return until next April. I'm sure I read he had a return that showed a massive loss and therefore he won't even pay tax until he has dug himself out of the loss.

You are a pain in the backside. I've had to use an assumption because you seem unable to provide a clear definition of signal-noise of the body. You cannot provide even a context for reference. I can tell you for certain, if your body isn't making a noise and there are no signals-you are very likely a corpse.

I believe he has agreed to do so. Not sure if anyone can learn much from a tax return except earnings, profits, losses, liabilities and tax paid. Even accounts only give a more detailed analysis of the numbers. It would require the books to be made public and that would not only reveal Trumps financial transactions, but those of all his customers and suppliers which would be against the law. Clinton would have to open the books of the Clinton foundation and that will never happen.

You just repeated the answer you gave before. Please enlighten me to what bodily signal noise is ? How are you defining it. It appears you are referring to the introspective quiescent mind and believing that, because it appears empty, then it must be pure consciousness. This was scotched during AYP practice when the question came up 'what happens when I lose the mantra' and my mind goes blank. The answer is 'then you are off the mantra so go gently back to it'. You haven't developed sufficient quiescent depth 'the witness' to understand that when your mind appears blank, that you are noticing it as appearing blank. It's a kind of black cat in a coal cellar gig. You are noticing 'ah my mind is blank, I am thoughtless, this is pure consciousness devoid of bodily signal noise'. Once its pointed out then it's usually very funny for the novice to learn this thing about their ability to confound themselves with an internal illusion.

I posit that Hillary worships Bill. That when Bill got impeached by the people this was something that Hillary was mentally unable to accept. I think Hillary is at war with the people for what they did to Bill and by inference what they did to her. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" What would a woman seeking revenge do to her detractors ? How far would she go to exact revenge - nuclear war ? How far does her psychosis stretch - could she actually believe that it was Bills downfall was the result of Russian involvement ? She is alleging that her emails were hacked by Russians and that Putin is responsible for the campaign against her. Syria is a flashpoint right now. There is pretext for starting a conflict directly with Russia and the potential for rapid escalation. How long would it be before the Russians - who never back down- react to shoot downs of their pilots and planes by US/Allied forces ? This is a false re-run of Cuba and it won't end with the Russians backing away, they are preparing for a nuclear attack on their country, which should warn the cautious that retaliation on the Syrian battlefield will come and the response will not be light. What happens if the Russians take out a US battle fleet - this is a distinct possibility with the weapons they have employed to provide air cover. Will Hillary walk away licking her wounds ? If she were a man she would, but she is not, she is a vindictive raging woman that might well be blaming the Russians for Bills downfall. I would take seriously my analogy with Bonnie and Clyde, I think that this is what's going on with Hillary. Think what Bonnie would do to the person who killed Clyde were she alive ? I cannot help thinking of that song " they left him lying in a pool of blood and laughed about it all the way home". Clyde was Bonnies hero, Clyde being Clyde made Bonnie Bonnie. Think back to that manic Clinton laugh when she talked about The death of the Libyan dictator. Who else is on her target list ?

I think I'm in agreement on that point, but you aren't applying it equally Ralis. You posted whilst I was writing, but I was saying the same thing. I'm fed up of emotive, fact light reporting on both sides of the fence. There is a need for a degree of conjecture and opinion, but it appears mostly this is what we always get. I wouldn't vote for Clinton, but the hit pieces on her changing her mind over a period of decades is crass. I would hate to have to look through my own changes of mind, it would look like I was totally inconsistent and confused, but we do change our minds, we do change. Attacking Iran isn't a bad option when it's a country threatening the west. Yet on the other side of the table we have the Clinton foundation extracting funding from Saudi Arabia and selling them high tech weaponry when it is the Saudis who fund terrorist groups which are threatening the West.

They should have attacked Iran years ago. Pointless doing so now Russia is firmly ensconced in the area after the USA/ West continually provoked them whilst simultaneously wasting blood and treasure playing liberators. Bad foreign policy which was presided over by the Clintons in many cases. I can't say I can watch much of Alex Jones, there's sensationalism without much sense of his personal view. Politics have become a Punch and Judy show which bares no connection with reality whatsoever. Most of the commentary seems so shouty and irrational I have a tough time listening for more than a few seconds. Everything appears to be an appeal to emotion. Again I refer to Brexit in which we watched two sides of supposedly intelligent people that promised a debate, turn the discussion into such a contorted mess that the public that did wish to grasp the import of the decision were left to find other sources to gain understanding. As an example the remain side created a false narrative around the European single market, in which they obfscurated the definition to make it appear that leaving it would mean no more trade at all with Europe and then they introduced numbers prepared by the treasury which told the public the amount of trade that would be lost if we did not trade with Europe. Of course once they had framed the argument in this way, they wanted the leave campaigners to fall into their little trap. At every opportunity they would ask 'do you want to leave the single market ?' Which put the leave campaigners in a double bind. If they said yes, essentially they were admitting to the false truth that leaving the single market would be ruinous. If they said no, then this would mean they were refuting that we should leave the EU at all (the single market membership means full membership). This kind of thing isn't open debate, or informing the electorate, it is systematic subterfuge and distortions designed to con the electorate I to voting the way the Government wants them to. The days of this kind of thing are surely over thanks to the Internet and alternative media, but this kind of shouty emotive stuff just seems like the MSM all over again.

Basically it's Bonnie and Clyde.

Not really. Hillary has promised a twofor if she gets the presidency. In other words Bill comes along as a package deal. You get one you get both.

then we would have to talk about Bill Clinton, which is, I suspect the real reason for rolling out the potential Trump connection. Then we have Wall Street and the entire hookers and lines depiction of the succesful traders with their links to Hillary. Can't forget about Rupert Murdoch, or Prince Andrew either. I can only imagine the kind of club that is generated by serial offenders who are immune from the law and have the sort of pacts that involve blood.

:-)

well there you go, things aren't as bad as you thought.

You think of yourself as being peoples intellectual superior.

What the hell does 'without bodily signal mean' ? How does one-I'm using your words 'glimpse' which means to visually sense consciousness, when vision itself is one of the referents that proves the axiom of consciousness. To be conscious of something is all we can learn about consciousness from the epistemological perspective. It is conscious itself that permits all enquiries. You cannot lift yourself up by pulling on your boot laces. The eye cannot see itself.

The irony is strong here.