Plea to Yanks and Rednecks
-
Reverend Stan wrote: They have been pummled. Enron, etc, did not practice capitalism, they betrayed it and should be punished for it. I totally agree, but I fear they may be many more Enrons before things settle down. There are a lot of worried CEOs out there right now I'll wager. AOL - Time Warner ... mmmm ... that could be next. Greed at the end of the day, is to blame. But are most people no inherently greedy? And if so, doesn't this make Enron, WorldCom, etc. inevitable? Of course, the CEOs should be punished - and heavily - but will it be enough? This is an open question - I am really interested to hear what people think about this. Reverend Stan wrote: Let market forces dictate medical costs, and everyone will be much more able to avail themselves of higher quality medical care. How? What about people that cannot afford it? How do we protect them? Do the rest of us pay for it? If so, how? Reverend Stan wrote: At what cost? Are we to return to a preindustrial technology to have a pristine environment? Nope, but I think we are going to get bitten on the ass by this sooner or later. I think the jury is still out on what damage us humans have done to the planet, but I think we should start considering what to do IF we have f*cked things up. A mass-transit system may not work in the US, but surely alternatives to gasoline should be sought without the oil companies throwing a spanner in the works? It may not happen for a while, but oil/gas reserves are going to run dry and the price will go up. Reverend Stan wrote: ...and should be free to discriminate according to their own personal moral beliefs So, someone responsible for, say hiring staff at a company should be able to discriminate against black people? There has to be some protection! Sure, think what you like - but being "free to discriminate" needs some clarification Stan!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: but will it be enough? i doubt it. corporate scandals have been around as long as corporations. each time, the govt fixes a loophole, some bright scumbag finds a new one to exploit. it's human nature. i agree that the US needs to get off the oil teat sooner or later. and, i think the automakers should get off the SUV kick, or that govt should do the right thing and reclassify them as trucks. c-
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917 -
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: but will it be enough? i doubt it. corporate scandals have been around as long as corporations. each time, the govt fixes a loophole, some bright scumbag finds a new one to exploit. it's human nature. i agree that the US needs to get off the oil teat sooner or later. and, i think the automakers should get off the SUV kick, or that govt should do the right thing and reclassify them as trucks. c-
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917Chris Losinger wrote: it's human nature. Sadly, this is what I fear. The next few months are going to be interesting. Chris Losinger wrote: i agree that the US needs to get off the oil teat sooner or later. The sooner the better IMHO. I'm sure there are plenty more reserves of oil/gas, but they are in some pretty inhospitable places - getting it out of the ground will be very expensive. And if "Son of Gulf War II" kicks off, then the price may go up high enough to hurt us all...
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Shog9 wrote: I'm assuming you meant bigotry. OK, I was in full rant mode :-D. Let me clarify. Bigotry in general is my pet hate, and I didn't word it at all well. What I mean is bigotry in the sense of people being intolerant to others that differ from them. I don't really understand how people can judge others becauase they have a problem with their race/religion/sexual preference, etc. Hey, I'm not a big fan of organized religion (let's not got there just now), but I'll respect your beliefs and I certainly won't judge you because of it! You know what I'm getting at Shog. Of course peoeple should draw some distinctions - but based on each individual - people are different and some people aren't very nice at all - but distinctions should be based on someones attitude/actions and not on their, for example, racial group. Categorizing people and making generalisations is always going to end in tears for someone.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
I'll work backwards, just for the heck of it... :D Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Categorizing people and making generalisations is always going to end in tears for someone. Not at all. There are situations where this will happen of course, but to say that we shouldn't make distinctions based on superficial measures is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We *need* these generalizations in order to function in society; it is necessary to assume certain things about a person in order to interact with them. Much as i'd love to have every person i deal with on a daily basis be a close personal friend, it just doesn't work that way. The danger comes from assuming things about a certain group that are not helpful: if i assume people driving police cars will pull me over if i drive too fast, i'm helping myself avoid traffic tickets. If i assume people driving white cars will kill me should i drive too slowly, i'm gonna end up in trouble. Nothing wrong with assuming female coworkers will act a bit stressed at certain times of the month; but assuming they can't do their jobs will certainly be counterproductive. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I don't really understand how people can judge others becauase they have a problem with their race/religion/sexual preference, etc. Easily - the same way i can assume a VB programmer doesn't know much about low-level system programming. It's not true across the board, i've known some very knowledgeable VB programmers, and there are plenty of ignorant C++ programmers for that matter, but in quite a few cases the assumption holds true. Now, as i've stated already, you can argue the merits of these classifications, but IMHO, it's easy to see why people make them. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: What I mean is bigotry in the sense of people being intolerant to others that differ from them. Well, i'd call that intolerance, but i do understand why it bothers you. I am saddened that some people will choose to be atheists, but i don't stop being civil towards them knowing this. It is a noble goal that you should, even when disagreeing or disliking another person, still treat them with respect simple because they are a person. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I was in full rant mode Understood :)
---
-
I'll work backwards, just for the heck of it... :D Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Categorizing people and making generalisations is always going to end in tears for someone. Not at all. There are situations where this will happen of course, but to say that we shouldn't make distinctions based on superficial measures is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We *need* these generalizations in order to function in society; it is necessary to assume certain things about a person in order to interact with them. Much as i'd love to have every person i deal with on a daily basis be a close personal friend, it just doesn't work that way. The danger comes from assuming things about a certain group that are not helpful: if i assume people driving police cars will pull me over if i drive too fast, i'm helping myself avoid traffic tickets. If i assume people driving white cars will kill me should i drive too slowly, i'm gonna end up in trouble. Nothing wrong with assuming female coworkers will act a bit stressed at certain times of the month; but assuming they can't do their jobs will certainly be counterproductive. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I don't really understand how people can judge others becauase they have a problem with their race/religion/sexual preference, etc. Easily - the same way i can assume a VB programmer doesn't know much about low-level system programming. It's not true across the board, i've known some very knowledgeable VB programmers, and there are plenty of ignorant C++ programmers for that matter, but in quite a few cases the assumption holds true. Now, as i've stated already, you can argue the merits of these classifications, but IMHO, it's easy to see why people make them. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: What I mean is bigotry in the sense of people being intolerant to others that differ from them. Well, i'd call that intolerance, but i do understand why it bothers you. I am saddened that some people will choose to be atheists, but i don't stop being civil towards them knowing this. It is a noble goal that you should, even when disagreeing or disliking another person, still treat them with respect simple because they are a person. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I was in full rant mode Understood :)
---
Shog9 wrote: It is a noble goal that you should, even when disagreeing or disliking another person, still treat them with respect simple because they are a person. Spot on. Shog9 wrote: The danger comes from assuming things about a certain group that are not helpful: This is what bugs me. Big time. I see it all the time - ignorance and petty small-mindedness from people that should really know better!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Reverend Stan wrote: They have been pummled. Enron, etc, did not practice capitalism, they betrayed it and should be punished for it. I totally agree, but I fear they may be many more Enrons before things settle down. There are a lot of worried CEOs out there right now I'll wager. AOL - Time Warner ... mmmm ... that could be next. Greed at the end of the day, is to blame. But are most people no inherently greedy? And if so, doesn't this make Enron, WorldCom, etc. inevitable? Of course, the CEOs should be punished - and heavily - but will it be enough? This is an open question - I am really interested to hear what people think about this. Reverend Stan wrote: Let market forces dictate medical costs, and everyone will be much more able to avail themselves of higher quality medical care. How? What about people that cannot afford it? How do we protect them? Do the rest of us pay for it? If so, how? Reverend Stan wrote: At what cost? Are we to return to a preindustrial technology to have a pristine environment? Nope, but I think we are going to get bitten on the ass by this sooner or later. I think the jury is still out on what damage us humans have done to the planet, but I think we should start considering what to do IF we have f*cked things up. A mass-transit system may not work in the US, but surely alternatives to gasoline should be sought without the oil companies throwing a spanner in the works? It may not happen for a while, but oil/gas reserves are going to run dry and the price will go up. Reverend Stan wrote: ...and should be free to discriminate according to their own personal moral beliefs So, someone responsible for, say hiring staff at a company should be able to discriminate against black people? There has to be some protection! Sure, think what you like - but being "free to discriminate" needs some clarification Stan!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: But are most people no inherently greedy? And if so, doesn't this make Enron, WorldCom, etc. inevitable? Yes, indeed. But here we have an example of what happens when the greed exceeds prudent limits - everyone suffers, especially business. The CEO's may be greedy, but they are not absolute morons. They know that their profit making potential is based ultimately on the faith of share holders and customers in the system itself. I am all for punishing those who broke the law, but I feel that even if the government did nothing, the system would correct itself quite efficiently and effectively for if it did not, it would collapse completely and no one would have anything. Even a CEO has to ask himself what good all his loot does him if there is nothing to buy with it. I don't beleieve there is any need for the heavy hand of government to tighten its grip on the coorporate world. Bureaucratic systems simply cannot manage the complex multitude of economic factors ruling the financial world as efficiently as the millions of us working together, greedily, can do. Capitalism is a much more efficient self correcting system than is government. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: How? What about people that cannot afford it? How do we protect them? Do the rest of us pay for it? If so, how? There is no satisfactory answer to that. But a plan that compensates for that by making sure no one has access to heath care is hardly a solution. From personal experience, I *know* that government involvement in health care makes it less available to those who need it. In the late 1950's my mother had double corneal transplants to save her vision. We were very poor and had no money or insurance to pay for such an experimental proceedure. The full tab was picked up by the Lion's club. In the 1990's when my mother needed only one of the transplants replaced, the Lion's club could no longer help out. Government involvement had simply made it impossible for such voluntary orginaztions to act. As a family, we were better off without the government's help. Thank you very much all the same. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nope, but I think we are going to get bitten on the ass by this sooner or later. I think the jury is still out on what damage us humans have done to the planet, but I think we should start considering what to do IF we have f*cked things up. A mass-transit system may not work in the US
-
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Colin, but we have no plans to invade anytime soon. All you have is a fair number of sheep and a volcanic rock to perch on, and we have plenty of both here. But do let us know if you discover any large deposits of diamond or platinum. Policies do change from time to time.:-D "Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "Recursion." "Recursion who?" "Knock, knock..."
Roger Wright wrote: but we have no plans to invade anytime soon. That really sucks !! I actually supected that. NZ quite likely has a very large offshore oil supply but it is likely to remote to make viable. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: But are most people no inherently greedy? And if so, doesn't this make Enron, WorldCom, etc. inevitable? Yes, indeed. But here we have an example of what happens when the greed exceeds prudent limits - everyone suffers, especially business. The CEO's may be greedy, but they are not absolute morons. They know that their profit making potential is based ultimately on the faith of share holders and customers in the system itself. I am all for punishing those who broke the law, but I feel that even if the government did nothing, the system would correct itself quite efficiently and effectively for if it did not, it would collapse completely and no one would have anything. Even a CEO has to ask himself what good all his loot does him if there is nothing to buy with it. I don't beleieve there is any need for the heavy hand of government to tighten its grip on the coorporate world. Bureaucratic systems simply cannot manage the complex multitude of economic factors ruling the financial world as efficiently as the millions of us working together, greedily, can do. Capitalism is a much more efficient self correcting system than is government. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: How? What about people that cannot afford it? How do we protect them? Do the rest of us pay for it? If so, how? There is no satisfactory answer to that. But a plan that compensates for that by making sure no one has access to heath care is hardly a solution. From personal experience, I *know* that government involvement in health care makes it less available to those who need it. In the late 1950's my mother had double corneal transplants to save her vision. We were very poor and had no money or insurance to pay for such an experimental proceedure. The full tab was picked up by the Lion's club. In the 1990's when my mother needed only one of the transplants replaced, the Lion's club could no longer help out. Government involvement had simply made it impossible for such voluntary orginaztions to act. As a family, we were better off without the government's help. Thank you very much all the same. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nope, but I think we are going to get bitten on the ass by this sooner or later. I think the jury is still out on what damage us humans have done to the planet, but I think we should start considering what to do IF we have f*cked things up. A mass-transit system may not work in the US
You make a lot of sense my man! Couldn't agree with you more. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
And you alternative is ... what exactly? The status quo? Rampant corporate fraud and company execs using company pension schemes as their personal piggy banks? I have always known that capitalism isn't perfect, but I think we are just seeing the very tip of the iceberg with Enron, WorldCom, etc. Who the f*** gave people like this the right to jeopordize MY future by helping reduce my pension to something next to worthless, etc. etc.. You are knocking "the left" so I guess you must must be on "the right" - what would YOU do to make the world a better place? Seriously - what would you change? Please tell me how we can aim for a better society? It's easy to knock the woolly-liberal-bleeding-hearts but do you have a better solution? Is the world fine as it is? Do we all live in a just and fair society? Is this a pipedream? Are people naturally greedy? Here are some things I want. If they make me a f***ing commie, then so be it: * Decent healthcare for all. They have the best health-care system in the world in France, but here in the UK it's straining. Should we follow their lead? * A cleaner environment and less pollution. Does that make me a tree-hugging vegan commie pig? * An end to bogotry - sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. There are many bigots here on CP - doesn't that make people sad? Why is it that "the right" seem to get tainted with the racism brush? (certainly here in the UK that is what people would have you believe). * A decent public transport system so fewer people need a car. I would happily pay more taxes for this but would pumping billions and billions actually make any difference? If not, why? Is there an alternative? (driving in the UK is getting more and more stressful year by year). * People should be able to come and live in this country and better their lives by working hard, WITHOUT being treated like s*** - something the right-wing press in the UK do very well - pushing peoples buttons about asylum seekers. Let's debate these issues. I think deep down I am probably a bit of a leftie on many issues ... or am I? Convince me otherwise.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: we are just seeing the very tip of the iceberg with Enron, WorldCom You are following a well-trodden path here. Marx too predicted the end of capitalism and look where both of them are now. Enron, etc only show that enforcement was lacking and that the political process in the US is subject to heavy lobbying. That does not mean that capitalism is inherently flawed. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Do we all live in a just and fair society? No. But it's better. And when was society ever just and fair society? In life there are winners and losers, even under Communism. If by just and fair you mean everyone earning the exact same wage then you're delusional. If by fair and just you mean that each should be rewarded according to the work they put it in well that system is already here; it's called capitalism. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Is this a pipedream? Are people naturally greedy? Socialists and other bleeding-heart liberals suffer from a fatal flaw: they believe that the human race is fundamentally a good-natured, altruistic species. Homo Sapiens only emerged these last 30,000 years. Before that he was an animal. An you do know that an animal's primary instinct is to survive don't u? Well guess what: millions of years of evolution are a lot of baggage. So yes, people are greedy and it's not going to change anytime soon. Utopia is a pipe-dream, a nice one, but a pipe-dream nonetheless. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Decent healthcare for all. They have the best health-care system in the world in France, but here in the UK it's straining. Should we follow their lead? This can be very easily answered. Are you willing to pay for it through higher taxes? If you are, great. If not, then you're either a hypocrite or one of those "lets soak-the-rich" crowd. I would also like to point out that if you, because of your beliefs, are willing to pay higher taxes then I'm not and I don't want to pay for your ideas. A viable health-care system is possible but very hard to achieve for one good reason: the aging population. A govt funded health system is thus unsustainable or only sustainable through ever higher taxes. I don't say poor people should be left on the street to die. I'm saying that the middle-classes who can afford to pay should. Govt should still provide healthcare for the poor/needy. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: A cl
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: But are most people no inherently greedy? And if so, doesn't this make Enron, WorldCom, etc. inevitable? Yes, indeed. But here we have an example of what happens when the greed exceeds prudent limits - everyone suffers, especially business. The CEO's may be greedy, but they are not absolute morons. They know that their profit making potential is based ultimately on the faith of share holders and customers in the system itself. I am all for punishing those who broke the law, but I feel that even if the government did nothing, the system would correct itself quite efficiently and effectively for if it did not, it would collapse completely and no one would have anything. Even a CEO has to ask himself what good all his loot does him if there is nothing to buy with it. I don't beleieve there is any need for the heavy hand of government to tighten its grip on the coorporate world. Bureaucratic systems simply cannot manage the complex multitude of economic factors ruling the financial world as efficiently as the millions of us working together, greedily, can do. Capitalism is a much more efficient self correcting system than is government. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: How? What about people that cannot afford it? How do we protect them? Do the rest of us pay for it? If so, how? There is no satisfactory answer to that. But a plan that compensates for that by making sure no one has access to heath care is hardly a solution. From personal experience, I *know* that government involvement in health care makes it less available to those who need it. In the late 1950's my mother had double corneal transplants to save her vision. We were very poor and had no money or insurance to pay for such an experimental proceedure. The full tab was picked up by the Lion's club. In the 1990's when my mother needed only one of the transplants replaced, the Lion's club could no longer help out. Government involvement had simply made it impossible for such voluntary orginaztions to act. As a family, we were better off without the government's help. Thank you very much all the same. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nope, but I think we are going to get bitten on the ass by this sooner or later. I think the jury is still out on what damage us humans have done to the planet, but I think we should start considering what to do IF we have f*cked things up. A mass-transit system may not work in the US
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: But are most people no inherently greedy? And if so, doesn't this make Enron, WorldCom, etc. inevitable? Yes, indeed. But here we have an example of what happens when the greed exceeds prudent limits - everyone suffers, especially business. The CEO's may be greedy, but they are not absolute morons. They know that their profit making potential is based ultimately on the faith of share holders and customers in the system itself. I am all for punishing those who broke the law, but I feel that even if the government did nothing, the system would correct itself quite efficiently and effectively for if it did not, it would collapse completely and no one would have anything. Even a CEO has to ask himself what good all his loot does him if there is nothing to buy with it. I don't beleieve there is any need for the heavy hand of government to tighten its grip on the coorporate world. Bureaucratic systems simply cannot manage the complex multitude of economic factors ruling the financial world as efficiently as the millions of us working together, greedily, can do. Capitalism is a much more efficient self correcting system than is government. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: How? What about people that cannot afford it? How do we protect them? Do the rest of us pay for it? If so, how? There is no satisfactory answer to that. But a plan that compensates for that by making sure no one has access to heath care is hardly a solution. From personal experience, I *know* that government involvement in health care makes it less available to those who need it. In the late 1950's my mother had double corneal transplants to save her vision. We were very poor and had no money or insurance to pay for such an experimental proceedure. The full tab was picked up by the Lion's club. In the 1990's when my mother needed only one of the transplants replaced, the Lion's club could no longer help out. Government involvement had simply made it impossible for such voluntary orginaztions to act. As a family, we were better off without the government's help. Thank you very much all the same. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nope, but I think we are going to get bitten on the ass by this sooner or later. I think the jury is still out on what damage us humans have done to the planet, but I think we should start considering what to do IF we have f*cked things up. A mass-transit system may not work in the US
Reverend Stan wrote: Liberals do not want to believe that because their entire philosophical framework is predicated upon the notion that we all need governemtn to save us from each other. Really? Perhaps in the US, "Liberal" may mean something quite different, especially when on the context of politics. However, as you no doubt already know, the word can have a number of meanings: a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. The above more or less describes my attitude to life. Hence I'm a liberal and proud of it. :)
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: we are just seeing the very tip of the iceberg with Enron, WorldCom You are following a well-trodden path here. Marx too predicted the end of capitalism and look where both of them are now. Enron, etc only show that enforcement was lacking and that the political process in the US is subject to heavy lobbying. That does not mean that capitalism is inherently flawed. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Do we all live in a just and fair society? No. But it's better. And when was society ever just and fair society? In life there are winners and losers, even under Communism. If by just and fair you mean everyone earning the exact same wage then you're delusional. If by fair and just you mean that each should be rewarded according to the work they put it in well that system is already here; it's called capitalism. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Is this a pipedream? Are people naturally greedy? Socialists and other bleeding-heart liberals suffer from a fatal flaw: they believe that the human race is fundamentally a good-natured, altruistic species. Homo Sapiens only emerged these last 30,000 years. Before that he was an animal. An you do know that an animal's primary instinct is to survive don't u? Well guess what: millions of years of evolution are a lot of baggage. So yes, people are greedy and it's not going to change anytime soon. Utopia is a pipe-dream, a nice one, but a pipe-dream nonetheless. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Decent healthcare for all. They have the best health-care system in the world in France, but here in the UK it's straining. Should we follow their lead? This can be very easily answered. Are you willing to pay for it through higher taxes? If you are, great. If not, then you're either a hypocrite or one of those "lets soak-the-rich" crowd. I would also like to point out that if you, because of your beliefs, are willing to pay higher taxes then I'm not and I don't want to pay for your ideas. A viable health-care system is possible but very hard to achieve for one good reason: the aging population. A govt funded health system is thus unsustainable or only sustainable through ever higher taxes. I don't say poor people should be left on the street to die. I'm saying that the middle-classes who can afford to pay should. Govt should still provide healthcare for the poor/needy. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: A cl
Brian Azzopardi wrote: That does not mean that capitalism is inherently flawed. Capitalism is obviously the best system so far - if it wasn't then it would have fallen a long time ago - I am part of the system and I am certainly thankful for the life it allows me to lead ... but it has a seedy underbelly that bothers me - and unfortunately us consumers are at the root of the problem. We all want cheap goods and services and in some cases this leads to blatant exploitation of the disadvantaged (especially in the 3rd world). I can afford to buy Fair-Trade products and feel all smug about it but others cannot. Let's hope that the latest round of corporate scandals doesn't lead us all into recession eh? Brian Azzopardi wrote: If by fair and just you mean that each should be rewarded according to the work they put it in well that system is already here; it's called capitalism. While people are still discriminated because of their colour/sex then it cannot be described as "fair and just". Discrimination is still a big problem I'm afraid. However, unlike other "lefties" I am no fan of "positive discrimination" - people should be employed based on their skils/capabilities not to "keep the numbers up"... Brian Azzopardi wrote: Racism will always ... Do you seriously think capitalism is to blame here? When did I say that Brian? Please read my comments - I was simply stating that I would prefer to live in a society with less bigotry, hatred and ignorance - it has nothing to do with "the system" - only education can help here. Things HAVE got better in the last few decades so there is hope. Brian Azzopardi wrote: And why are you, and other lefties, so anti-car ... You have no right to impose on other people what to do with their property. Once again Brian, you haven't read my post. How does wanting a decent public-transport system make me anti-car? All I want is an ALTERNATIVE to having to own a car! Traffic problems in the UK are well documented - either supply us with alternatives or build more roads (!) but do something. Travelling in the UK is a very frustrating experience for many of us and a great deal of people only own a car because it is the *only option*. I work from home most of the time and so have given up my car - it was only getting used once a week and was costing me £££'s. My office is less than 10 miles from here - is there a reliable bus or train service?
-
Reverend Stan wrote: Liberals do not want to believe that because their entire philosophical framework is predicated upon the notion that we all need governemtn to save us from each other. Really? Perhaps in the US, "Liberal" may mean something quite different, especially when on the context of politics. However, as you no doubt already know, the word can have a number of meanings: a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. The above more or less describes my attitude to life. Hence I'm a liberal and proud of it. :)
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Well, OK. These political tags are all pretty vague. By those definitions, I am also a liberal. :) But I would point out that there are some problems... For example... tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others this would mean you would necessarily be tolerant of the ideas of a racist. The very thing you have implied you are intolerant of. so obviously you are... open to new ideas for progress ... only when those new ideas are your own... and Favoring proposals for reform, only when those proposals are defined precisely and narrowly according to your preconceived orthodoxy. Am I wrong? :):rose: I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.