Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: reed13

I’m more in favor of an organization that is bluntly ‘what’s in it for me’. If the organization can not explain it, it is incompetent, or hiding something. I think it is always the best for both, and all parties, to be politely blunt about the nature of the relationship, with the exception of small children and feeble adults.

I, we, swim in seas of obfuscation and bunkum.


40 posted on 04/15/2010 7:40:33 AM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: Leisler

I have no issues with being blunt, upfront, and honest - as I said taking care of your people doesn’t mean molly-coddling them.

I do have issues with reneging on ones word/promises (I relate that to the obfuscation you mention) OR just throwing up our hands and saying “black and white only, letter of the law is all we can do”. That’s leads to a frozen cold waste for humanity that is far to cruel to leave to any child.

I have faith that the Lord gave us free will expecting just a bit more than that.


46 posted on 04/15/2010 11:00:26 AM PDT by reed13 (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson