Say something completely undisputable

[konchog uma]

Having followed your monkey posts for awhile now, and how you consistantly troll threads, I wonder why you haven't been removed from TTB. You don't even attempt to stay on topic, or offer anything meaningful to the discussion.

 

"the ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle; totally fascinated by the realm of the senses....if anyone threaten it, it actually fears for its life. Let this monkey go. Let the senses go." Lao-tzu

 

reported

[ralis]

Ah, explaining away the cultural rot resultant of decades upon decades of government charting its own course and distorting the majority of information people rely on to make decisions, incentivizing bad behavior, failure to prosecute fraud for those 'connected,' the dumbing down on the school systems - that's a spiritual crisis at the root of our make believe global environmental crisis?

 

It wasnt that "Gore's a politician," its that Gore is a complete and utter friggin liar, even more self serving than most everyone he denigrates. If you debate a false premise from a well known liar, are you really extracting any truths from it?

 

Al Gore is a liar? In what way is he a liar? Can you absolutely prove that statement? You maintain that you are always rational and logical. Yet, make gross generalizations whenever such accusations are convenient as a way of spreading the unsubstantiated meme that 'Al Gore is a liar'.

Edited January 26, 2013 by ralis

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

wait, I thought you were ignoring VM, Uma...??? or did I get you mixed up with someone else...??? lol

[Vmarco]

Oh, ok - so there neednt be any truth to the original statement, then. Was just curious.

 

No,...I didn't imply that at all. There doesn't need to be anything true about the author of the statement. The statement should be argued on its own merit,...without predisposition as to the stater.

[konchog uma]

wait, I thought you were ignoring VM, Uma...??? or did I get you mixed up with someone else...??? lol

 

you may have gotten me mixed up with myself. i do that all the time.

 

firstly, i think i saw his response in a quote from a member who im not ignoring, secondly, the dialogue that shows in place of a member's post when they are being ignored gives the option to read it anyway, thirdly it wasn't a response to him in a conversational way. Just a notice that i found the post offensive and reported it.

Edited January 26, 2013 by konchog uma

[Owledge]

This could open up a new interesting topic about third party offense. Vmarco addressed it to me and I don't feel offended. His remarks are clearly generalizations/exaggerations and empty rhetoric. I don't expect people to believe every word he says.

Also, since he claims he's posting quotes merely to put them up for debate, he would agree that it's completely debatable whether I'm a monkey.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Owledge

[Vmarco]

Al Gore is a liar? In what way is he a liar? Can you absolutely prove that statement? I doubt it!

 

Although Al Gore has good intentions, of course he is dishonest,...all theists are basically dishonest. Joeblast is obviously biased,...likely getting his talking points from neo-con sources.

 

The quote I used was for the quote, not to discuss Al Gore,...however, as the subject has been broached, the way I see it,...if Gore had not allowed a conservative Supreme Court to dictate the 2000 election,....9-11 would have never occurred,...there would not have been an illegal invasion of Iraq, killing and maming tens of thousands of my fellow Americans, or the hundreds of thousands Iraqis,....the Country would not be in the financial straits it is,...my stock porfollio would be many times larger than it is. The world, and everyone in it, would have been much better off had the socio-path GW Bush not been President.

 

As I just called GW Bush a socio-path, I won't merely walk away with an unsubstantiated claim.

 

 

 

Psychiatrists tell us that all serial killers lack the emotions that make us human; that they have to learn to emulate those emotions in order to get by in society. Hence, a charming, well educated fellow like Ted Bundy who is known to have murdered 15 women and may have killed 36 before he was caught.

 

　

While Bush is no Bundy, when it comes Bundy's education and acquired charm, and to our knowledge has never personally murdered anyone, it has been evident to us that there is something missing in George W. in terms of his lack of compassion and empathy. As governor of Texas, he set a record in signing death warrants 154 in five years. He even made fun of the way convicted killer Karla Faye Tucker begged for her life.

 

　

If we believe the psychiatrists, a sign of a future serial killer is a child who delights in torturing and killing animals. George W., as a child, did exactly that. In a May 21, 2000, New York Times' puff piece about the values Bush gained growing up in Midland, Texas, Nicholas D. Kristof quoted Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton: "'We were terrible to animals,' recalled Mr. Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. 'Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Mr. Throckmorton said. 'Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'"

 

　

On Sept. 12, 2000, Baltimore Sun reporter Miriam Miedzian wrote, "So when he was a kid, George W. enjoyed putting firecrackers into frogs, throwing them in the air, and then watching them blow up. Should this be cause for alarm? How relevant is a man's childhood behavior to what he is like as an adult? And in this case, to what he would be like as president of the United States."

 

　

We're finding out, aren't we? While we, in two articles before the 2000 election Sept. 21 and Oct. 23 noted Bush's penchant for blowing up frogs, the corporate media blew it off, just as it had no interest in what he was trying to hide by obtaining a new Texas driver license and his 1976 drunk driving conviction, or the fact he was AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. Instead, they bought into his nonsensical claim of being a "compassionate conservative" and "a uniter not a divider" who was going to "restore honor and dignity to the White House."

 

　

All through the 2000 campaign and up to Sept. 11, 2001, the corporate media depicted Bush as an affable, tongue-tied bumbler the kind of guy Joe Six-pack would like to have a beer with turning a blind eye to his dark underside. It mattered not that he stocked his illicit administration with the worst of the worst: John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Gale Norton, Paul O'Neill, Harvey Pitt, Thomas White, John Negroponte, Otto Reich and convicted Iran-contra felon Elliot Abrams who received a 1992 Christmas Eve pardon from George W.'s father.

 

　

Then, despite his peculiar behavior on Sept. 11, the corporate media and his handlers transformed him into a leader extraordinaire in the mold of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill rolled into one.

 

　

And as Bush had Afghanistan bombed back beyond the Stone Age to rid the world of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, then switched to claiming it was the Taliban that had to go, then declared there was an "axis of evil" and it was really Saddam Hussein who was the "mother of all evil" and that war with Iraq was in the offing to get rid of Saddam, the corporate media cheered him on and to this day continues to beat the war drum. They have yet to consider that the passive serial killer needs to feed his lust for blood by sending others to put their lives on the line and do the killing for him.

 

　

In his Sept. 12 article, White House insiders say Bush is "out of control," Mike Hersh wrote, "Some among Bush's trusted White House staff fear what they are seeing and where Bush is taking us. His state of mind hauntingly reminds them of Richard Nixon's Final Days. They fear Bush is becoming Nixonesque . . . or worse. Although Bush lacks Nixon's paranoia, he may entertain even more dangerous notions."

 

　

Mark Crispin Miller, author of The Bush Dyslexicon and professor of media studies at New York University, who also sees the darker Bush, said in a Nov. 28 interview with the Toronto Star, "Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss."

　

Miller said he did intend The Bush Dyslexicon to be a funny book, but that was before he read all the transcripts, which revealed, according to reporter Murray Whyte, "a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all on that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chretien agree."

　

"He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge,"

 

Miller told Whyte. "When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine. It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."

 

In a speech last Sept. in Nashville, trying to strengthen his case against Saddam, Bush's script called for him to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." But the words that came out of his mouth were, ""Fool me once, shame . . . shame on . . . you," followed by a long pause, then, "Fool me can't get fooled again!"

　

Said Miller, "What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, 'Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."

 

　

Another example, Miller said, occurred early in Bush's White House tenure when he said, "I know how hard it is to put food on your family."

　

According to Miller, "That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, 'Put food on your family's table'—it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table."

 

　

Miller told Whyte, ""When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it."

 

　

"This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels," Whyte wrote.

　

"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper," Miller said.

"I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and death," Miller told Whyte. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs."

[Vmarco]

Just a notice that i found the post offensive and reported it.

 

Konchog Uma,...the faux seeker of great bliss wisdom, vajrayana, dzogchen, dao, who scourers TTB in search of items offensive to his delusions. Good luck on that, Konchog Uma

[Vmarco]

Also, since he claims he's posting quotes merely to put them up for debate, he would agree that it's completely debatable whether I'm a monkey.

 

Of course,...that is why I posted Lao-tzu on the subject.

 

"the ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle; totally fascinated by the realm of the senses....if anyone threaten it, it actually fears for its life. Let this monkey go. Let the senses go." Lao-tzu

 

Wei Wu Wei said, "The practice of meditation is represented by the three monkeys, who cover their eyes, ears and mouths so as to avoid the phenomenal world. The practice of non-meditation is ceasing to be the see-er, hearer or speaker while eyes, ears and mouths are fulfilling their function in daily life."

Edited January 26, 2013 by Vmarco

[konchog uma]

lol owledge

[deci belle]

fuck off

[Protector]

FUCK ON!!!

[Owledge]

Mindfuck is healthy.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

WHAT the fuck?

[deci belle]

I said fuck off and that's what I meant.

 

Refute fuck off!

[Protector]

Just fucking around, eh?

[ralis]

Seems as though this site has been infested with 2 year olds.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

re read my fuck comment. I was trying to convey literal indignation.
What the hell just happened to this thread...?!?

[Owledge]

Seems as though this site has been infested with 2 year olds.

Youth bothers you?

[skydog]

WHAT the fuck?

 

 

Kinda reminds me of mexico and dancing to this song all the time hahaaha

 

[Vmarco]

Seems as though this site has been infested with 2 year olds.

 

I may grasp what you're saying,...not really 2 year olds, but delinquent juvies with the skill set of 2 year olds. Between them and a few Tea Party Apologists, those desireous for a superior discussion (see I Ching) will likely go elsewhere.

 

As for myself, it would be great to engage in a superior discussion,...however, I'm generally here to observe juvies, bullies, spoilers, Tea Party sophomores, and the like, and their various methods of truth suppression, fear, and the beliefs they cling to for their identity.

[deci belle]

ralis can't refute it haha!! Let's meet at Ohori's ralis!!

[Birch]

Wow, that opinion of your fellows is low Ralis and co.

[Vmarco]

ralis can't refute it haha!! Let's meet at Ohori's ralis!!

 

As you do not accept private messages:

 

Ohori's? Yes, I know where it is.

 

Lezboyenne? Is that like a Transbian?

[Vmarco]

As long as one is physically incarnated their work is unlikely to cease. I am sure I am no exception. Admittedly when you chose a quote by such a dishonest and annoying individual it sparked within me a sense of annoyance which, paired with the rest of how you present your arguments lead to my response. If it seemed neurotic to you then that is your perception.

 

This method may, to some degree, keep you from being the focus of the dialogue, but it does not change that what you are posting is a product of your experiences, physiology, and a number of other factors that are unique to the physical incarnation represented as you. Whether you acknowledge your role in the process of posting what you do or not, it is a product of your view of reality.

 

This view of science seems very shallow to me. Rather than address what legitimate science (and no, I do not think all science is legitimate, but I do think there is great value in proper application of scientific method) posits, you discount all of science in much the same way that I discounted Al Gore. I hope you are capable of seeing how this might appear to be a double standard on your part.

I am not Buddhist, but I can see a lot of value in the belief system you practice. I am a bit disappointed that you do not address how one would actually go about uncovering this truth you speak of though. You talk about how it cannot be reached, but not how it can be reached, which I presume you believe you know. It would be much more useful and encourage more productive dialogue for you to talk about how to get there because there are always a myriad of ways to fail at something, and talking about a handful of them in this case is not particularly useful.

 

Viator wrote, "Admittedly when you chose a quote by such a dishonest and annoying individual it sparked within me a sense of annoyance which, paired with the rest of how you present your arguments" That's a good definition of neurosis, from a Buddhist point of view.

 

Yes, my style of using collage is a product of my experience,...one which is quite helpful for me. Most of my experiences are so foriegn to others, it makes even the simplest communion difficult. Thus years ago I began using to quotes as a way to bridge communication,..."hey, what do think of this." However, more often than not, people make predispositions on the nature of the quote because they seek to analyze the quoter, or are bothered by some other aspect, like an aversion to quotes.

 

IMO quotations and aphorisms can serve as a mentoring device for those who venture into the liminal zone between duality’s sciential sentience and the sapiential consciousness of nonduality, in which direct relationships with authentic teachers are often unavailable. Those already within the liminality between fragmented and unfragmented consciousness quickly recognize the difference between an authentic teaching and a false teaching. A false teacher places conditions upon one’s experiences, whereas an authentic teacher does not confer about liberation or enlightenment without advancing specific practices that open the way for direct experience—that is, without a need for faith, belief, or mathematical assumptions.

 

Perhaps suggesting science to be faith-based idiocy could appear shallow on the surface,...but in the context of the dialougue is quite factual. Perhaps it would better be put this way,...most people fail to recognize that the foundation of a mathematical statement is only true in relation to the assumptions of "set theory," the assumption that any collection of objects actually exists. All objects, without exception, are indeed mathematical. The reason for that lies in the multiplying/dividing nature of the optically organized universe. However, the modern cosmological understanding of the universe suggests that no objects exist, indicating that mathematics pivots on a misguided belief in materialism. The sciences usually expound on relative reality through the assumption that object-ive reality actually exists.

 

Again,...contrary to the opinion of most,...science has little interest in truth. Their paychecks are derived from the pursuit of facts about objects. Science builds its theorems or working hypotheses upon previous beliefs, and therefore it often labels any discussion of absolute certainty as absurd.

 

So,...how does one uncover truth? Ironically, Descartes was pretty close when he said, "All that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once."

 

If Descartes included the 6th sense, thinking, which arises from the sense organ called the brain, we would likely be closer to a more sustainable consciousness than we are.

 

So,...how does one uncover truth? Pretty much by recognizing all that is false. Or as Avalokitesvara said in the Shurangama sutra, "As soon as one sense-organ returns to the source, All the six are liberated."