In this instance, I believe the word 'liberal' has changed its meaning. 'Liberal' used to mean 'a wide variety of' - so 'liberal arts' included literature, mathematics, philosophy, various sciences, etc. Medicine? Medicine is an art, so yeah, one could even argue that.
Now it seems to mean 'something that does not require intellectual rigor.' Unfortunate because the study of philosophy SHOULD require this. Ditto for literature, history, creative writing, etc. How can you be a good writer without a good grasp of language and ideas?
Just amazing.
I used to be a policemen and stopped because a) I haven't liked the direction the country has been going since Clinton was President, regardless of which party was in power, and b) police management is , shall we say, not good.
It's so weird because I'm quite sure there are racist cops - there are racists in every profession and fortunately not as many as their once were. Ultimately some of the issues cops have with various classes of people (and this is not a synonym for American blacks, because depending on where you are it's different) is that the skin color and culture of who commit the most crimes gets identified as 'these are the folks who commit the most crimes.' Is it true? Yes, in some instances. Are all, or even a majority, of people of this racial / ethnic/ whatever group criminals? Probably not.
As I said, I'm sure that some cops are racist, I knew some of them , and I was glad to say goodbye to them when I left the job. But in a lot of instances you get labelled in a ridiculous way; a young man who happens to be a minority jumps a subway turnstile and gets stopped by a transit cop. "You're racist!" he's told - um, no, because he saw the man jump the turnstile. I had the term used on me when stopping a fairly standard car at 1:30 am one night; how could it be a racist stop when I couldn't see the color or gender of the person driving?
Really I do wonder if some of this are the anti freedom folks on both sides who are really, desperately, wanting a Big Brother state.
This is called "Community Policing" and used to be the norm in policing. Why did it go away? Violence in the 'inner city" was one thing. Not wanting to have enough cops on the street - literally , walking the neighborhoods. Minorities resenting white cops. Lots of reasons. I agree we need to return to it - but I doubt if there's the will on the part of the taxpayers to go for that.
Um, Mississippi isn't really all that rural. Parts of it, yes, but ~51% or so live in urban areas. Couple that with Massachusetts, where 66% of folks live in rural areas, In Ohio it appears more balanced. Colorado is VERY urban dense and the idiocy there is...astounding.
Or maybe it means that you don't give a rip about who does your email because you're looking at it on a mobile device. Or maybe you have a far flung network of coworkers, friends, and family. Or, maybe, you spend your time thinking about innovative things and not wasting time on changing your email address when the latest new ones come out because you're busy inventing internet 3.0?
That isn't socialism. That's people making voluntary choices to associate with others. They are operating in a capitalist system. In socialism, the state owns the means of production and the poor peasant has no alternative but to work for, sell to, and receive alms from the state.
I think it's two sides of the same coin. If we DID wake up and realize we're responsible for our own actions, we would care for one another. Or at least it'd be easier.
Indeed, but it has to be a kind of mental health issues resolution that is unlike what we usually do. Most times mental health issues are "push pills." We've got to get a handle on real mental health issues and resolve it with therapy rather than turning (more) people into zombies. If we have a problem with this kind of violence - and we do, despite the fact that violence numbers are DOWN significantly since the 1970s, we still have one, we need the will to resolve it. And I'm afraid we don't have it.
Not in the slightest. Please note what I said, and I quote myself: "I can see the 30s, people were starving. Not the 60s. And yes, I was alive in the 60s."
Don't be ridiculous. I'm merely saying that things weren't as bad in the 60s as they were in the 30s. Period. It is you who are putting disgusting inferences on things. I am a 21st century man, and I know that if a man is an *ssh*le it has nothing to do with the color of his skin. And, btw, you do not know my race, nor religion, nor anything else about me.
Indeed. It's pretty terrible. Amongst the bible thumpers I know (I'm not one of them) they DO respect the first amendment and whilst they'd LIKE to see things censored they are also aware that freedom is important. I know no SJWs so I can't speak on them. Whether or not ALL bible thumpers respect the constitution, I can't say.
Actually it's not hugely efficient at making a profit. Most healthcare systems operate at a loss. It's hugely efficient at spending money on nothing in particular, I will giveyou that.
Personally I do not believe in absentee voting. Go to the polling place, with your ID, and queue. Period. And the Rs don't have nearly the history of the Ds - the cesspool known as Chicago, and the one as New York prove that.
How many times do I have to say to you - but of course, you're a leftist zombie so perhaps you can't read - "I stood in the queue at the polls and watched as more than 10 people made this claim within a 10 minute time period." Jeez.
Slashdot Mirror
In this instance, I believe the word 'liberal' has changed its meaning. 'Liberal' used to mean 'a wide variety of' - so 'liberal arts' included literature, mathematics, philosophy, various sciences, etc. Medicine? Medicine is an art, so yeah, one could even argue that. Now it seems to mean 'something that does not require intellectual rigor.' Unfortunate because the study of philosophy SHOULD require this. Ditto for literature, history, creative writing, etc. How can you be a good writer without a good grasp of language and ideas? Just amazing.
I used to be a policemen and stopped because a) I haven't liked the direction the country has been going since Clinton was President, regardless of which party was in power, and b) police management is , shall we say, not good. It's so weird because I'm quite sure there are racist cops - there are racists in every profession and fortunately not as many as their once were. Ultimately some of the issues cops have with various classes of people (and this is not a synonym for American blacks, because depending on where you are it's different) is that the skin color and culture of who commit the most crimes gets identified as 'these are the folks who commit the most crimes.' Is it true? Yes, in some instances. Are all, or even a majority, of people of this racial / ethnic/ whatever group criminals? Probably not. As I said, I'm sure that some cops are racist, I knew some of them , and I was glad to say goodbye to them when I left the job. But in a lot of instances you get labelled in a ridiculous way; a young man who happens to be a minority jumps a subway turnstile and gets stopped by a transit cop. "You're racist!" he's told - um, no, because he saw the man jump the turnstile. I had the term used on me when stopping a fairly standard car at 1:30 am one night; how could it be a racist stop when I couldn't see the color or gender of the person driving? Really I do wonder if some of this are the anti freedom folks on both sides who are really, desperately, wanting a Big Brother state.
This is called "Community Policing" and used to be the norm in policing. Why did it go away? Violence in the 'inner city" was one thing. Not wanting to have enough cops on the street - literally , walking the neighborhoods. Minorities resenting white cops. Lots of reasons. I agree we need to return to it - but I doubt if there's the will on the part of the taxpayers to go for that.
Um, Mississippi isn't really all that rural. Parts of it, yes, but ~51% or so live in urban areas. Couple that with Massachusetts, where 66% of folks live in rural areas, In Ohio it appears more balanced. Colorado is VERY urban dense and the idiocy there is...astounding.
Or maybe it means that you don't give a rip about who does your email because you're looking at it on a mobile device. Or maybe you have a far flung network of coworkers, friends, and family. Or, maybe, you spend your time thinking about innovative things and not wasting time on changing your email address when the latest new ones come out because you're busy inventing internet 3.0?
That isn't socialism. That's people making voluntary choices to associate with others. They are operating in a capitalist system. In socialism, the state owns the means of production and the poor peasant has no alternative but to work for, sell to, and receive alms from the state.
Public money to pay for infrastructure isn't socialism. Sorry.
I think it's two sides of the same coin. If we DID wake up and realize we're responsible for our own actions, we would care for one another. Or at least it'd be easier.
Indeed, but it has to be a kind of mental health issues resolution that is unlike what we usually do. Most times mental health issues are "push pills." We've got to get a handle on real mental health issues and resolve it with therapy rather than turning (more) people into zombies. If we have a problem with this kind of violence - and we do, despite the fact that violence numbers are DOWN significantly since the 1970s, we still have one, we need the will to resolve it. And I'm afraid we don't have it.
A friend of mine, who is native to Jacksonville, says this frequently, actually. (And yes, he still lives in Jax)
Not in the slightest, sorry. Even I'm not that paranoid ;-)
Not in the slightest. Please note what I said, and I quote myself: "I can see the 30s, people were starving. Not the 60s. And yes, I was alive in the 60s."
In China, it was late term abortions, ostracizing people who had more than one child, and who knows what else.
It's immaterial. If they called themselves socialist, and they did things like this in the name of socialism, then , yes, they were.
here ya go, which about 5 seconds of Google use showed: https://www.nationalreview.com...
Wrong. https://www.nationalreview.com...
Don't be ridiculous. I'm merely saying that things weren't as bad in the 60s as they were in the 30s. Period. It is you who are putting disgusting inferences on things. I am a 21st century man, and I know that if a man is an *ssh*le it has nothing to do with the color of his skin. And, btw, you do not know my race, nor religion, nor anything else about me.
Indeed. BTW the Puritans were also socialist.
Indeed, the far left almost openly supports genocide of white folks. Pretty astounding.
Indeed. It's pretty terrible. Amongst the bible thumpers I know (I'm not one of them) they DO respect the first amendment and whilst they'd LIKE to see things censored they are also aware that freedom is important. I know no SJWs so I can't speak on them. Whether or not ALL bible thumpers respect the constitution, I can't say.
You might not have noticed "not doing all that well" is not the same as living on the streets and starving.
Actually it's not hugely efficient at making a profit. Most healthcare systems operate at a loss. It's hugely efficient at spending money on nothing in particular, I will giveyou that.
Personally I do not believe in absentee voting. Go to the polling place, with your ID, and queue. Period. And the Rs don't have nearly the history of the Ds - the cesspool known as Chicago, and the one as New York prove that.
Perhaps what we need is less politicized regulation? I have no idea what the solution is, alas.
How many times do I have to say to you - but of course, you're a leftist zombie so perhaps you can't read - "I stood in the queue at the polls and watched as more than 10 people made this claim within a 10 minute time period." Jeez.