(2009-07-10) — Now that the federal government owns 61 percent of General Motors the automaker plans to introduce a ‘public option’ vehicle as part of a sweeping plan to provide new cars for some 46 million Americans who lack proper transportation.
The new Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE), dubbed Gennie Mo in a fashion reminiscent of Fannie Mae, will produce the low cost, high quality model to force private automakers to cut their prices and ultimately to guarantee the right of every U.S. resident to own a late model vehicle.
Rep. Barney Frank applauded the move and immediately introduced a bill that would require Gennie Mo to sell its cars to low-income citizens with no downpayments and no credit checks, at below-market adjustable interest rates.
62 responses so far ↓
1 Libby Gone // Jul 10, 2009 at 10:55 am
COOL!
Now I can drive that 42,000 square foot HUMMER and make the neighbors drool with envy! Heck maybe I can have it covered in brick and add an inground pool, bowling alley, nightclub, and a white picket fence!
and I don’t even work………..
2 gafisher // Jul 10, 2009 at 11:27 am
“… require Gennie Mo to sell its cars to low-income citizens …”
Let’s see; that group could start with the (former) employees of thousands of former GM suppliers which have been bankrupted by the Obama Administration’s decision to transfer all of the “old” GM’s valuable assets to the “New” GM, leaving those former suppliers out in the cold.
3 Jesse Raphial // Jul 10, 2009 at 12:02 pm
No money down and no credit checks, I’ll take two cars!
4 gafisher // Jul 10, 2009 at 12:16 pm
“The … Government … will produce the low cost, high quality model …”
Let’s see … zero emissions, high-tech papier-mâché bodywork, renewable balsa protective side panels, reusable woven hemp air bags, training wheels and, oh yeah, pedals.
And made in China.
5 Laughing@You // Jul 10, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Egospeak:
Like the term “Liberal”, the term “Conservative” is ambiguous. The Republican Party has gone to great effort to associate the word “liberal” with things that most Americans find objectionable. Democrats have largely not attempted to do the same with the term “conservative”.
Most often these “Conservatives” see themselves as the only arbiters of the intention of our constitutional framers, and many see themselves as the keepers of complete religious truth. This while most often they have a very limited understanding of either, instead relying entirely on the teaching of those they find, for some reason, admirable.
These, often erroneous, understandings are held so dogmatically that any other truth can find no place.
“Conservatives” claim they want the court to be strictly “constructionist” in the interpretation of the constitution; saying, anything more is “making law”.
How long did our courts hold that slavery was constitutional by “constructionists”.
In addition, I would suggest that the world today is well beyond the ability of America’s colonials to foresee and understand many of the issues we face today. These would have, in fact, been beyond their comprehension.
Our framers also went to great length to exclude religious faith from our government entirely. Our forefathers were overwhelmingly Christian, but not necessarily the kind of Christians you would depict them to be. As some here seem to hold in contempt the Deists views of Thomas Jefferson, while his contemporaries certainly did not.
Our federal union was formed to a significant degree by coercion (see loyalty oaths), much in the same way labor unions have at times operated, and the way many of today’s conservative would have it.
In the concept of “Commonwealth” many colonials also embraced socialism in some degree, at least to the degree most here embrace it with municipal, state, and federal services, and in the Social Security Administration’s monthly payments. Many here complain while accepting the cash! Or, as in Darthmeister’s case, educational benefits.
I have often called you folks hypocrites because you say one thing, while doing another in government, and in the daily practice of your “Christian Faith”.
ET
Egospeak, your valediction “Regards”, has always seemed to be a passive-aggressive remark to me.
6 jedp2@cox.net // Jul 10, 2009 at 4:12 pm
We thank you, ET, for your comments. It’s not often that one with such intellect gets so much wrong in such a simple concept as “freedom of the individual” which is supposed to trump any effectiveness of a ruling class, a government more commonly known as an oligarchy which changed the original intent of “life, liberty and property” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” which allows voters with little fiscal responsibility to dictate to the providers of their freedoms. The “working man” has been subjugated to the “cheated masses” of entitlement. That’s what’s making our Founders roll over in their graves. Seismically, I might add.
Oh, and I think it’s about time you phoned home. They need you in that alternate universe.
7 JamesonLewis3rd // Jul 10, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Happy Birthday!
8 R.A.M. // Jul 10, 2009 at 4:41 pm
With that Barney Frank comment, I think I am experiencing Deja Vu!
Off topic: I posted this on the “Obama in Russia-” thread but wanted everyone to see it because I really mean it!
————————————————————
egospeak said: “Perhaps your problem is that we get into heated arguments here at Scrappleface and unfortunately a lot of mud is slung and names are called and insults are hurled and and bait is laid and traps are set and both sides are guilty of this. I’ve been guilty of it and of late I’ve been trying to respond and comment less emotionally and less in the heat of the argument. We can do with less name calling and all that goes with it but it is a decision that we must make individually.”
Thanks for posting this and giving me the opportunity to say God has been convicting me lately. I have tried to control myself in the past but NOT done a very good job. For that, I apoligize to EVERYONE I have called a name, and I SINCERELY mean it!!!
While I do NOT believe that I will see eye to eye with people on the other side of the political aisle, I have been as wrong or maybe worse than some of them by resorting to mocking and name calling. Again, I apoligize and promise to try to do MUCH better!
BTW, contrary to what some here think, I DO NOT always think my side right! In fact, I was very disapointed with GWB during his second term, as well as a LOT of Republicans in the Senate and House!
I just see that the Democrats do the same things and seem to get a pass when they do. That and they seem to do it more often!
I guess part of the blame should be on the MSM for this. If ANYONE can do something corrupt and doesn’t have to pay ANY penalty, (sometimes they are actually REWARDED for the bad behavior), who wouldn’t keep doing those things?
Back to the reason for this post. Bottom line is, I will try to start conducting my posts in a civil tone.
9 Laughing@You // Jul 10, 2009 at 4:54 pm
RAM,
Very nicely done, thank you!
ET
10 Laughing@You // Jul 10, 2009 at 5:11 pm
dp2,
I have a hard time understanding your post 6, but I take it you disagree.
“… to the providers of their freedoms”. Are you such a provider?
As a veteran, and an eighth generation American, let me tell you, such a provider does not post on this cite, and you certainly are not my forefather’s spokesman!
ET
11 camojack // Jul 10, 2009 at 5:16 pm
“The new Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE), dubbed Gennie Mo in a fashion reminiscent of Fannie Mae, will produce the low cost, high quality model to force private automakers to cut their prices and ultimately to guarantee the right of every U.S. resident to own a late model vehicle.”
Every U.S. resident? Good word choice, as undoubtedly such largess will in no way be limited to actual citizens.
Eleventeen?
12 Laughing@You // Jul 10, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Make that “site”.
13 Fred Sinclair // Jul 10, 2009 at 7:19 pm
L@Y #5 “….Democrats have largely not attempted to do the same with the term “conservative”.”
Let me see….according to what I’ve read lately,
Military veterans,
people flying the American flag,
bumper stickers: promoting life over abortion;
promoting the 2nd amendment;
asking “Where is the Birth Certificate?”;
quoting Bible verses about the homosexual lifestyle being an abomination to God;
promoting anything contrary to the Democrat’s Platform;
disrespecting the White House occupant;
promoting anything favorable to Republicans or Conservatives;
referencing Obama’s drug use and his homosexual encounters with Larry Sinclair [no relation whatsoever] in 1999.
Any of these actions are grounds for suspecting the miscreants as potential Right Wing Terrorists.
Tell me L@Y don’t you read? or watch TV? Wanting to protect our Constitution, our American way of life, slash government spending, cut taxes, work for smaller and smaller and smaller government are labeled “Right Wing Extremest” with the possible or probable potential of being or becoming terrorists.
The bright light on the horizon is that Obama’s popularity rating has dipped into his base for the first time since his “election”.
Democrats are waking up to what’s happening. His “Cap and Trade” was DOA in the Senate (and will never be passed - in spite of the House’s narrow passage) the Obama Health Care Reform is in the sewer as Democrats are being made aware of just what it involves (and like Hillary’s try, it will go down in defeat, also DOA in the Senate)
Both houses of Congress are in for a major shakeup in 2010 (it will be 1994 all over again) and in 2012 Obama’s sure defeat [he hasn't the chance of flatulence in a whirlwind] will most likely preclude his even bothering to run for re-election.
I’m not a betting man but if I were, I could probably become very rich betting on the political outcome over the next few years.
14 Fred Sinclair // Jul 10, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Referencing Larry Sinclair [no relation whatsoever] in 1999:
Date: July 9, 2009 11:38:43 PM EDT
Larry Sinclair Press conference Pt 1
Click here: YouTube - Barack Obama — Larry Sinclair Press conference Pt 1
If this doesn’t post as clickable, you can pull it up on You Tube - Barack Obama – Larry Sinclair Press conference Pt 1
15 Newsman // Jul 10, 2009 at 8:07 pm
The government deal does not include tires or a battery!
But then most of you scrapplers got enough juice of your own to get it started so no problem in that regard.
Tires tho, now there’s the problem. But, I don’t know maybe some of you guys don’t need tires, the way you run over other people who have contrary views. You can cut them up better without that rubber covering.
16 JamesonLewis3rd // Jul 10, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Jesus Christ is Lord of all!
Hallelu Yah!
God Bless America
17 Fred Sinclair // Jul 10, 2009 at 9:21 pm
We the People Stimulus Package
He tells us to have a Taxpayers revolt and march and that’s just what we are going to do on Sept 12th! Go Here to Register and for Info …
Video link:
We the People Stimulus Package
Again if the video link of Thomas Paine doesn’t post enter it on Google or dogpile.
18 Fred Sinclair // Jul 10, 2009 at 9:24 pm
It works for sure on dogpile
YouTube - We The People Stimulus Package
Bob Basso author of “Common Sense” plays the role of Thomas Paine to ignite the fire of change in America. Patriotism and Pride for America lead T…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA • Found on Google, Yahoo! Search
19 Newsman // Jul 10, 2009 at 9:26 pm
JamesonLewis3rd …. methinks that you really have missed your calling ! You need to be out on the road under a tent !
20 Fred Sinclair // Jul 10, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I believe that we (Christians ) pray for or should begin praying for Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al. they are all three showing the enormous strain of their positions.
Collectively in 2010, 2012 or at the first opportunity help these people and their cohorts return to civilian life and its relative peace and absence of strain (or less strain at least)
We are specifically directed by God, in His book, to pray for them. Pray that they can know the peace that passeth
understanding - especially removed from their onerous duties in the political realm.
Luke 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
21 egospeak // Jul 10, 2009 at 10:50 pm
L@Y re: 5
Thank you for your prompt and detailed response. I see that I have much to respond to but because of work constraints I will not be able to do so until late tomorrow afternoon or evening. I would like to respond briefly to your question about slavery and your comment about “Regards” immediately.
With regard to the question about how long the Supreme Court ruled that slavery was constitutional, I am reminded of what Whoopi Goldberg asked John McCain on The View last fall after McCain said that if elected he would appoint justices who share the same judicial philosophy as Scalia, Roberts and Alito. She asked if she needed to worry about being a slave again if McCain was elected. Putting aside the fact that she was never a slave to begin with so she could never become a slave again, her question revealed a gross lack of understanding of what it means to be a strict constructionist, or as some say, constitutionalist.
With the passge of the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865, slavery as a practice in the United States was abolished. The abolition of slavery was now part of the Constitution. A strict constructionist jurist could/would never rule that someone could be made a slave, or that slavery could exist in the United States, after its passage. A strict constructionist jurist would be Whoopi’s best defender against being made a slave whether again or for the first time.
In a supremely delicious irony it is those who have a “living constitution” judicial philosophy who would be the ones that Whoopi would have to worry about returning her to a state of slavery. Why is that? Because, according to them the Constitution has to be interpreted in light of modern times. I mean, the Founding Fathers couldn’t possibly know what America is like in 2009, much less 2050 or 2109.
Do you really believe that the 13th Amendment would stop the “Living Constitutionalists” from affirming slavery (especially of whites) if they were convinced that it was the only way to improve race relations? I think not.
BTW, the answer to your question is until December 6th, 1865.
As far as Regards being a passive/aggressive remark, rest assured it has nothing to do with passive/aggressive anything. It’s just something that I stole from William F. Buckley.
Regards,
22 Fred Sinclair // Jul 11, 2009 at 6:24 am
This is failing to open for some in Manhattan who fear it’s already been pulled. as of 6:16 AM this still was working = 1 hr 53 min long
YouTube - The Obama Deception HQ Full length version
Get the DVD @http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/obdedvd.htmlhttp://www. obamaimpeachment.org/ The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely …this is truly the one film Obama doesn’t want you to see.
dogpile The Obama Deception HQ Full length version if this dosen’t post.
23 JamesonLewis3rd // Jul 11, 2009 at 12:39 pm
BHO sure does likes madmen, and he wants them to run our country.
24 Darthmeister // Jul 11, 2009 at 1:54 pm
<b>Obama declares to Africa: End tyranny, corruption</b>
Thus spaketh messiah.
In light of Obama’s own usurpations and socialist agenda:
<b>Africe declares to Obama: End tyranny, corruption</b>
I’m sure if they had a voice, aborted Americans would be saying the same thing.
25 Darthmeister // Jul 11, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Mr. Obama on his economic stimulus … “It’s working.”
My Gawd! Any more of Obama’s kind of “success” we’ll soon become the latest addition to the list of backwater former British colonies.
26 Libby Gone // Jul 11, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Darth,
Amen! 9 point plus unemployment nationwide, Mitch Chee Gon going from 14.1 (now) to 20……. next year.
WHO THE ACH CHEE DOUBLE HOCKEY SCHTICKS THINKS THIS WORKS?????
EDE DIET LIBS!!!!!!!
27 onlineanalyst // Jul 11, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Here’s one for “newsman” about the shabby lack of ethics at the WsPo.
Libby Gone: The only people “working” under the Obamao economic plan are government employees, whose numbers are swelling and “czars,” whose role relative to the Constitution is highly dubious.
Heh! My WV is “hornblowing” and “exluded.” Somehow there is a Biden-Obamao joke in there somewhere. The Obamao-Biden stimulus plan is nothing but hornblowing, which excluded the growing ranks of unemployed who are facing extended vacations.
28 gafisher // Jul 11, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Darth Re#24: “Mr. Obama on his economic stimulus … “It’s working.””
Obviously he means it’s accomplishing his intended goal.
29 Darthmeister // Jul 11, 2009 at 5:46 pm
gafisher, you’re probably right. Sorry I didn’t nuance that announcement more.
Libby Gone, Michigan may hit 20% unemployment by late autumn! I bet Dem union workers in that state, the tools that they are, will still vote Democrat! Forrest Gump was right, stupid is is stupid does.
30 Darthmeister // Jul 11, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Sotomayor’s Supporters Begin Attack on New Haven Firefighters
More politics of personal destruction from the Donks? Say it ain’t so! My faith in the Demoncrat Party is
shakenreaffirmed. Business as usual for LibDonks, you know … the party of compassion, understanding, open-minded sophistication and fair play. It’s really no different than these snarling jackals going after Joe the Plumber.31 onlineanalyst // Jul 11, 2009 at 7:03 pm
The history and published work of the latest Obamao nomination, this time for “science czar” should raise a lot of eyebrows.
When is Congress going to put a stop to this extra-Constitutional infusion of czars, neither elected nor approved by Senate confirmation?
32 Newsman // Jul 11, 2009 at 8:12 pm
BRAVO RAM !!!
33 egospeak // Jul 11, 2009 at 11:22 pm
L@Y re: 5
I would disagree with you that the terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” are ambiguous. As political idealogies they are pretty well defined. Democrat and Republican are far more ambiguous as you have conservatives, liberals and moderates in both parties.
It is undeniable that Republicans have successfully pinned the label liberal on, at least. the far left of the Democrat party. I can’t concede that Democrats haven’t tried to demonize Republicans but I won’t argue the point. I will point out however, that liberals have been demonizing conservatives on college campuses and in the media for decades.
Who are these conservatives who most often “see themselves as the only arbiters of the intentions of our constitutional framers,… and see themselves as keepers of complete religious truth“? Are you speaking of politicians, private individuals or perhaps some of the fellow posters here? You suggest that their understanding is limited and based, for all intents and purposes, on some kind of guru (my interpretation) and that “these, often erroneous, understandings are held so dogmatically that any other truth can find no place“. Are they not free to proclaim their beliefs on those subjects as passionately and dogmatically as they wish?
By suggesting that their beliefs are defective, are you not implying that your dogmatically held beliefs are the ones that are correct? And if not, then who holds the dogmatically correct view? And on what do you base your belief that their understanding is limited and erroneous? As for your contention that no other truth can find a place, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, not the guarantee of an audience.
While the world is certainly different from that of the founders, it is a testament to their genius that they were able to give us a document that contained the framework for our government and timeless principles to carry into the future.
I believe you are incorrect to say that the founders went to great lengths to exclude religious faith from government. I believe it is more proper to say that they went to great lengths to ensure that we didn’t have a national religion. There is a big difference.
I would like to see some proof to support your contention that conservatives would like to act in the same manner as labor unions have and still do.
Which federal,state and municipal services are you refering to? Trash collection, mail service, infrastructure, public works? For the most part conservatives are not opposed to those types of services, although there are those who would be in favor of privitizing them.
Social Security is a problem and conservatives have been sounding the alarm for years. I have been paying into it for almost 40 years and it is my most fervent hope that when I retire I’ll be able to live on my savings and 401k and not collect Social Security. But I can’t blame people who have paid into it for expecting something out of it. Otherwise it is Marxism in its purest form.
You call us hypocrites (I’m guessing you are refering to those of us at Scrappleface) for saying one thing while doing another in government, which is a great trick since none of us are politicians and lastly accuse us of hypocrisy in the practice of our Christian faith. That is also a neat trick because to know that you would need to be omniscient and only God is omniscient… and I don’t think that you are God.
Regards,
34 JamesonLewis3rd // Jul 12, 2009 at 6:24 am
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
35 gafisher // Jul 12, 2009 at 12:25 pm
JL3 Re#33:
In other words, Capitalism.
36 gafisher // Jul 12, 2009 at 12:29 pm
37 R.A.M. // Jul 12, 2009 at 1:34 pm
L@Y and Newsman: Thank you both. Believe it or not, I was actually raised better than I have shown here at times. I hope to prove that with GOD I can do better. It also should show that there Satan is real because it was with his influence that I allowed to happen, that was in MANY of my posts attacking people and calling them names!
Please no jokes about “the devil made me do it”.
In all sincerity, what people do is ALL their responsibilty and NO ONE elses!
While Satan may, (and WILL), tempt us, it is up to us to give in, (sin), or to turn away. God gave us ALL free will!!!
I will now count to ten, pray, or whatever it takes to POLITELY disagree. I am sure that I will also post less because not EVERYTHING I read or disagree with demands an answer.
I hope boberin also reads my apoligy as well as a few others I have been un-Christian towards!
38 Laughing@You // Jul 12, 2009 at 2:48 pm
RAM,
I’m sure you and I will always disagree in many ways, but I am taken aback by your remarkable positive change in approach. I will endeavor to keep this in mind in my responses to you.
Now Ram, you reveal Christ Jesus, and His work in your life!
ET
39 Darthmeister // Jul 12, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Fisking Obama’s lies about the economy he “inherited” from Bush … of course.
Actually, if Mr. Obama wants to politicize this issue, if he was honest he would admit he inherited the economy from his own Democratic Party which was in control of Congress which in turn irresponsibly oversaw those financial institutions which failed on their watch in the not-so-free government regulated market.
Despite their denials, Democrats and Obama OWN this present economic disaster by making it even worse with their ignorant financial tinkering.
40 Newsman // Jul 12, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Darth … you cite the words “understanding, open-minded sophistication and fair play.”
You know what those words mean ????????? News to me !
You age as you go but definitely not like fine wine.
41 Newsman // Jul 12, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Obama may now own the economic disaster but he sure did not ‘create it’ ?
Seems to me the people who hollered the most for deregulation had a big hand in the creation.
42 Darthmeister // Jul 12, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Well spoken, egospeak. The real dogmatic fascists here are often those trolls who continue to browbeat us with their “wisdom”, a liberal humanist wisdom which is presently failing the test of reality and time.
As to what represents “conservative” and “liberal” today, I will admit the terms have evolved somewhat. In a political/government context limited government conservatism today is more accurately reflects what had been known as classical liberalism whereas modern liberalism emphasize collective rights and see government as the ultimate arbiter of moral, social, and culture issue. Liberal humanists and secular liberals scoff at the idea that there is a God who has endowed us with individual rights, believing as they do that their rights are merely derived from government decrees. Liberals embrace the concept of highly regulated industry, social collectivism, and private and public morality essentially being defined by human institutions like the Supreme Court. Whatever lip service they pay to the eternal truths of the Bible and the Ten Commandments of God are merely for show since they typically harbor a deep-seated suspicion if not resentment of any authority, other than a government of their own making, telling them what the limits of their behavior should be for the public good.
By contrast, modern conservatism embraces limited government, economic liberty, natural and moral law, and the concept there is a very real Creator who has endowed us with unalienable rights that, as Alexander Hamilton, has been written on our souls by the hand of Divinity that no political power has the right to erase.
In UCLA’s Tim Groseclose’s largely ignored-by-the-left but landmark study nonetheless A Measure of Media Bias, it’s not very difficult to tease out what is meant by “liberal” or “conservative” since he uses elected officials of both designation as general guides to measure the undeniable liberal tilt of the national socialist media (aka: MainStream Media). Likewise the ideological makeup of said elected officials more or less reflects what can be termed a “liberal voter” or a “conservative voter”. Though there may be a full spectrum of political and ideological beliefs which vary by incremental degrees from one voter/citizen to the next, there are still general categories in which American citizens fit that we can call “liberal” or “conservative”. In fact, it would be more politically substantive to have a Conservative Party versus a Liberal Party than a Republican versus a Democrat Party.
In the real world it is still the general truthes which proves the rule and not the exceptions which prove the rule. So for someone to think they aren’t liberal when they are in actuality virtually indistinguishable from liberals in general (e.g. in their Bush hatred, embrace of statism, general opposition to free market capitalism, see government as defining or redefining social norms, etc) because, for example, that they happen to believe the Second Amendment actually says what it says about an INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT to keep and bear any small arm of his/her choice or that their military service somehow automatically innoculates them from being some whacked out anti-American leftist despite spewing virtually the same talking points as other Marxist/socialist/collectivist/commie liberal who are quite proud to be identified as such!
People who know me in the real world here understand that I’m not a Republican but in fact I am an independent conservative libertarian who had been left behind by the Democratic Party about thirty years ago when it began veering hard to the left. Every online political “test” I’ve taken places me more in the rank of conservative libertarian, with one ranking me as more of a libertarian conservative. Therefore, if some troll thinks I’m some “hard-right” extremist then IMO its the case that they are so far left that anyone to their right will indeed APPEAR as “far right”. That’s what happens when the average American liberal is just right of Stalin politically and far left of Stalin morally and socially.
43 Darthmeister // Jul 12, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Please forgive my lousy editting, egospeak. My previous post may no show up since my “comment is awaiting moderation”, but you will get the drift.
Bush-haters and modern liberals are more left than they think and modern conservatives are more like classical liberals than they know. I’ve already linked to an historical analysis of “classical liberalism”.
44 Laughing@You // Jul 12, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Egospeak:
“I would disagree with you that the terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” are ambiguous”.
See Fred’s post in 13.
Most of the things he lists are completely untrue, but in those issues where he manages to find a real disagreement, he frames his argument in a distorted, misleading, and offensive way. I disagree with him almost completely in his description of a “liberal”. It is clear that you disagree with me similarly in the way I view the “Conservative Movement”.
The dictionary definitions of these two terms seldom have value in any discussion of politics.
Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve.[1] As the name suggests it usually indicates support for tradition and traditional values though the meaning has changed in different countries and time periods. The modern political term conservative was used by French politician Chateaubriand in 1819.[2] In Western politics, the term conservatism often refers to the school of thought started by Edmund Burke and similar thinkers.[3] Scholar R. J. White wrote: “To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquify the atmosphere […] The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living.”[4] Russell Kirk considered conservatism “the negation of ideology”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
I doubt this description would satisfy all here, as I am not satisfied with the following description of Liberalism.
Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.[1]
Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term “liberal” and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for political liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual’s right to private property,[2] and a transparent system of government.[3][4][5] All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Surely you understand my meaning, let’s not have a tedious exchange of semantics.
ET
45 JamesonLewis3rd // Jul 12, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Liberals advocate and promote sin, conservatives do not.
I don’t see the slightest bit of ambiguousness but, Wikipedia (whose definitions are hilarious, to say the least) is not my source of knowledge nor do I live in the 19th century.
46 JamesonLewis3rd // Jul 12, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I probably should have used “ambiguity” instead.
47 SGT USMC 1ea // Jul 12, 2009 at 10:05 pm
We must close GennieMo. The UAW prisoners have had enough torture. As yet we have no plan to relocate the unemployed workers and dealers that no one wants, but must close it all the same.
Deus est Semper Fidelis
48 SGT USMC 1ea // Jul 12, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Regarding Hypocrisy:
Only someone who has no standards, values or morals is never a hypocrite. A Christian that attempts to hold oneself to a perfect standard is always a hypocrite.
-rtj
Deus est Semper Fidelis
49 Darthmeister // Jul 12, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Senator Boxer (D-Moon):Sen. Boxer warns of ‘droughts, floods, fires, loss of species’ — if Senate fails to pass bill…
She forgot pestilence, famine and divine judgments in the form of falling meteors.
Isn’t it funny how liberals scoff at Christians who have predicted the social downfall of America yet applaud this nutcase who is engaging in some warped stewardship theology (which some left-wing “Christians” have been promoting) by engaging in such reckless divinations. Yeah, yeah it’s based on (pseudo) science, right? Just like the secular “Future Shock” and Global Cooling false prophets circa 1978 were based on “science” and ended up being utterly wrong.
Now who is sowing the “politics of fear”? Clearly this
madamSenator is just dying to get into our backpockets to further support her peculiar articles of faith. Further proof the Democratic Party has become little more than a quasi-religious cult.50 Darthmeister // Jul 12, 2009 at 11:31 pm
What began to concern me more and more were the clear signs of rot and decadence germinating within American society-a rot and decadence that was no longer the consequence of liberalism but was the actual agenda of contemporary liberalism. . . . Sector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other.” -Irving Kristol, “My Cold War”
Indeed, it was the case that modern liberalism grew out of classical liberalism by expanding its central ideals of liberty and equality while jettisoning the restraints of religion, morality, and law. Those ideals, along with the right to pursue happiness, are what we said we were about at the beginning, in the Declaration of Independence. Though stirring as rallying cries for rebellion, they are less useful for the purpose of arranging political and cultural matters because of their ambiguities, they become dangerous when taken, void of serious qualifications, as social ideals. Yet this is precisely what modern liberalism does, it creates its own “morality” devoid of historical moral law and traditional western values and attempts to remake America over into its own corrupted image.
On the Ideals and Dangers of Modern Liberalism
Unlike some, I refuse to wear rose-colored glass when examining the evidences arrayed against the collectivist fascism of modern liberalism which, ironically, undermines the classical liberalism of the American founders which gave it birth!
51 egospeak // Jul 13, 2009 at 7:38 am
L@Y re: 44
Thank you for your reply. I would tend to agree with you on two points.
First, that the dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative have little value in a political discussion. Part of the reason is that they reflect the traditional definition of the term rather than its current definition, liberal being the perfect example. If you reread the definition you provided it seems, at least to me,
to more accurately describe the modern conservative. Freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the powers of government, rule of law, an individual right to property and a transparent system of government do not describe the modern liberal that inhabits the Democrat party of 2009. While it may have been true 40 or 50 years ago it cannot be argued that it is true today.
That does not mean that I believe that the Republican party is the repository of all wisdom, purity and goodness. However given the limited choices that we have at election time I operate by the rule that half or a quarter or even a single slice of a loaf is better than none at all. It’s not a choice I like but it is what it is.
Secondly, I agree that we should not have a tedious exchange of semantics.
Thanks again.
Regards,
wv - If you (reek Ben) try using some deodorant!
52 Darthmeister // Jul 13, 2009 at 8:47 am
“Economic liberalism” will always fail because it is designed to fail. You cannot exponentially expand a non-productive, punitive entity – government – indefinitely. Also programs, bureaucracies and departments don’t disappear under liberal political leadership particularly in bad times, yet they still must be funded and that means putting more of an economic burden on We the People - or else simply crank up the printing presses and subsequently inflate the economy.
Liberalism has proven to be a failure in America’s major metropolitian areas with inner-city population exodus in response to growing economic decay resulting from failed liberal social policies. Liberalism has failed to nurture the sources of economic growth; failed to understand the problems of urban neighborhoods; and failed to appreciate the importance of a strong moral order to address the problem of urban violence and work ethic.
For example, the economic trainwreck of Detroit is a very clear triumph of liberal economic and social policies.
Also, Broken Cities: Liberal’s Urbana Legacy is an excellent study of a very real problem in cities long controlled by liberals and their bankrupt economic, political and economic policies.
53 Darthmeister // Jul 13, 2009 at 8:54 am
egospeak, once again you are absolutely correct. The definition often provide for liberalism is actually more accurately reflected in modern conservatism as you noted. The example I use of John F. Kennedy being far more like a modern conservative Republican than a liberal Democrat is still germaine to this issue. The fact remains that liberals are far more to the left than they ever have been in American history and they refuse to acknowledge how extremist and fringe they’ve actually become. For goodness sake, despite their high-sounding rhetoric to the contrary, these people tacitly approved of the murder of 46 million of the most innocent of all Americans, the unborn. And that one issue is just the tip of the iceberg of the mountain of evidence which proves the moral, social, political and economic degeneracy of modern liberalism (Neo-Coms).
54 JamesonLewis3rd // Jul 13, 2009 at 10:03 am
55 Laughing@You // Jul 13, 2009 at 1:06 pm
“Part of the reason is that they reflect the traditional definition of the term rather than its current definition, liberal being the perfect example.”
Does it seem appropriate for you to tell me what I believe? The attitude this seems to depict is an example of the conservatism I oppose.
Agree with you, or be condemned.
It is your right to believe as you will; it is only when you speak in an attempt to limit that freedom for others that I wish to offer a counterbalance.
“Freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the powers of government, rule of law, an individual right to property and a transparent system of government do not describe the modern liberal that inhabits the Democrat party of 2009.
I see this as a mirror image of the truth. Maybe we are hardwired, as some studies have suggested, to believe as we do.
The only Conservative “freedom” Liberals have ever attempted to deny is their unrelenting desire to invade the privacy of other Americans, particularly in the bedrooms and doctor’s offices. And their attempt to impose their views based on a view of their own moral, spiritual, or patriotic superiority.
After my original post here I was told, by one “Conservative”, that I was not “among my equals”. No other conservative voiced objection then. This despite the fact that my bona fides are, AT LEAST, the equal of any here.
But, the more I read, the more I am inclined to accept that first judgment.
In many ways the conservative notion of freedom seems, to me, very much like that of the Taliban. Both intrude into the private lives of their neighbor under the guidance of their god.
“If you reread the definition you provided it seems, at least to me, to more accurately describe the modern conservative.”
Hardly!
ET
56 Laughing@You // Jul 13, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Darthmeister,
Did I ever tell you about my mother’s annoying little Toy Poodle “Pepe”?
I don’t know what it is, but every time I read your stuff, the memory of the little fella riding my drapes comes to my mind.
Down!
ET
57 Fred Sinclair // Jul 13, 2009 at 5:46 pm
For the 1st time Obama’s approval rating has dipped below his base of 52%. Only 51% now approve, somewhat approve and strongly approve of his Presidency.
President at all time LOW! 36% STRONGLY Disapprove
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows
that 28% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack
Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly
Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of ? 8
(see source for rest)
(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
58 Laughing@You // Jul 13, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Fred, you say:
“For the 1st time Obama’s approval rating has dipped below his base of 52%. Only 51% now approve, somewhat approve and strongly approve of his Presidency.”
But, your cite says:
“Overall, 53% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Forty-six percent (46%) disapprove.”
(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
My friend, this kind of Repugging is beneath a man of your virtue!
In part, Obama’s declining poll number is among Democrats who are disappointment that he is not liberal enough! That should be easy enough to fix!
Must of us also want a complete investigation of Bush Administration treachery! Still, this is no reason to believe they will ever vote for a Republican!
ET
59 Laughing@You // Jul 13, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Most
60 Possumtrot // Jul 14, 2009 at 8:47 am
Dude! Where’s my Corvette?
Things haven’t been the same since Gummint Motors killed the fish and redesigned the plastic car in the 1980s.
Constant readers at United Possums International know I drive one of the last of the Stingrays. There are pictures there to prove it. Now I’m just bloviating about the beatification of St. Michael, and trying to push the readership over 10,000.
My credit rating wouldn’t get me a down payment on a ‘68 Volkswagen these days, and I’m not sure I’d want a tin-can Flaming Ball of Death from Gummint Motors.
If I want a “green” car, I’ll buy some cans from Ace Hardware and repaint my ‘78 Silver Anniversary Special Edition. It’ll still pass anything on the road except a gas station.
61 Gunny G: OK, OK…~ If It’s CARTOONS Ya Want…. « -THE "G" BLOGS ~ Gunny G Online - // Jul 14, 2009 at 5:52 pm
[...] [...]
62 Gunny G: OK, OK…~ If It’s CARTOONS Ya Want…. | Ron Paul War Room // Jul 14, 2009 at 5:57 pm
[...] [...]
You must log in to post a comment.