Bloody Libertarians, Imagine the Mess if they Ran Government

lostinrates

treliac wrote: »

That's good as one of our close coven members is such.

he ddn't describe viva, quite obviously because she's up some ladder, all libririan chic, and gen doesn't want any competition.

treliac

lostinrates wrote: »

he ddn't describe viva, quite obviously because she's up some ladder, all libririan chic, and gen doesn't want any competition.

No, indeed the thought of viva up a ladder is quite unbeatable.

Really2

Generali wrote: »

Apparently I am witty and intelligent and look a little bit like George Cloony.

Who knew?

TBF if you asked me what the outcome of the survey meant in my case I would not have a clue.

But I can relate to the outcome of yours, it's a curse isn't it.

vivatifosi

lostinrates wrote: »

he ddn't describe viva, quite obviously because she's up some ladder, all libririan chic, and gen doesn't want any competition.

Librarian chic... :rotfl:The uniform is Per Una or John Rocha for pretty much everyone where I work. You can't wear chic when you've got to be up a ladder one minute, sitting on the floor the next and shifting boxes after.

On other matters, not a big Ron Paul fan. Have seen him on Meet The Press a couple of times and there's something vaguely odd about him.

Sir_Humphrey

treliac wrote: »

No, indeed the thought of viva up a ladder is quite unbeatable.

What about a Chevette up a ladder?

Getting a bit surreal now...:idea:

vivatifosi

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

What about a Chevette up a ladder?

Getting a bit surreal now...:idea:

Sir, are you calling me an ageing gas guzzler? How very dare you

treliac

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

What about a Chevette up a ladder?

Getting a bit surreal now...:idea:

My car is a cut and shut Vauxhall Chevette. It only cost me £5 and it is the best value car I've ever had.

I knew I knew that from somewhere. This is not just a car, this is a..... No, that's an M & S line innit?

treliac

vivatifosi wrote: »

Sir, are you calling me an ageing gas guzzler? How very dare you

Darling, if he does dare, we'll all gang up to defend you. To the end!!!

Now, what were we talking about..... wasn't it librarians?

Spirit_2

Another nice person popping in, if it's all right and I am not interrupting.

Well I did the quiz - I am a centre left social moderate libertarian. Libertarian is how I describe myself on FB.

Just living where I do ...I probably seem almost leftwing and where I work not too bad for a tory. Both environments awash with nice people.

Houseprices quite bouyant, older properties snapped up, newer builds taking a little longer to shift.

Degenerate

tomterm8 wrote: »

except for the intelligent design question where I think it's a pretty bad inditement of society that anyone really needs to ask whether we should teach pure idiocy to the next generation.

Most people who take this line are completely ignorant of what "intelligent design" is all about.

The theory starts by conceding all the proven science on evolution. ID proponents acknowledge that the Earth is billions of years old, and than man evolved through a line going back through primates, to the simplest early life forms. The Darwinian view attributes all these changes to purely random mutations, with those that present advantages winning through (natural selection). ID proponents reject the notion that it is 100% random. To support their view they point to biological structures that they say are too complicated to have arisen randomly in one step, and that have no functional intermediate steps that would have presented evolutionary advantage.

They do make rather bold claims of a scientific basis for their theory, when clearly it is a religiously motivated attempt to squeeze the hand of God (or a "designer") into this area of perceived reasonable doubt. But then, it could be said the Darwinian view is an article of faith for the atheist perspective too - the structures the ID folks point to are genuinely hard to account for, and it's hard to see how it can ever be conclusively proven either way without a time machine to go back and examine the cellular structure of the earliest life on Earth.

Rather than "pure idiocy", the people behind ID are pretty clever and have successfully exposed those parts of Darwin's theories that are weaker and/or unprovable. This is probably why they attract such hostility and disinformation from opponents. I'd rather people try to reconcile their faith with the proven science than bury their heads in the sand and pretend the earth is 6000 years old. I certainly wouldn't want to see ID taught in schools as scientific fact, but I could see it being presented in faith schools as one perspective on how God might fit into the whole evolution thing.