On YOUR Dime: Congressmen Lease Luxury Cars

Where should the line be? What should our representatives drive?



IMO: let them. It shows their view of thier constituents.

 

I bet plenty of Cogressional members from both sides of the aisle do this. I don't know that I oppose them having a "company car" as a job perk. I am more concerned about hundreds of billions spent in Iraq than I am about this drop in the ocean.

 

Ps, you have obviously been listening to the wingnuts who love to 'swiftboat' Mr. Gore. He made extensive renovations to his home to make it more 'green'. He practices what he preaches. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22248699/

 

Having that size home is in no way green. The libs want us to walk and ride unreliable public transportation while they lease luxury cars on our dime and jet around the world to talk about the global myth.

They want us to use less energy in our homes while they build mansions. They want us to pay more taxes out of our pockets to give to those who dont work or make any attempt to save for themselves making things much harder on us who do all the while remodeling their mansions.

They hold a hidden agenda of socialism/communism which is evidenced by their lack of personal sacrifice in the same areas they call all other Americans to do so. It is all about power and has nothing to do with environmentalism, energy, or the poor or racism. They are a flaming joke.

 

Al Gore bowed to the pressure, and started his renovations. He still won't allow the press in on his speeches, and the reason he won't run for president is he'll be forced to debate his stupid movie.

Back to the O/P, I don't see any problem. People who's job it is to be mobile, wine & dine dignitaries, and generally be a public figure should be given nice cars to drive. Ps does have a point with the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude, but a lot of republicans are hopping on this global warming bandwagon, and I'll bet they have the same kind of cars.

 

Considering that there aren't existing rules in place for this sort of stuff he can't really be faulted for it. But believe you me, there SHOULD be caps on this sorta wasteful spending, and strictly enforced caps at that.

 

This may be a bit of a diversion, but this whole demonization of "liberals" strikes me as being highly counter-productive. And, to be fair, "liberals" do the same thing to the "conservatives".

The point is that the way these terms are used establishes a divisive "us-them" mentality which I think works against getting the proper resolution to these issues. Why not stick to the issue and not use terminology and over-generalizations that only appeal to what is a distinctly unhealthy tribe mentality.

Once these things become a shouting match between tribes (e.g. liberals and conservatives), the real issue gets muddled.

BTW, I think all these public officials should drive environmentally-friendly cars.

 

Andre, many people find it helpful to label others (and themselves). For instance, you could tell me every single political position you hold on every single issue, or you could just tell me your party registration in a single word. It's more efficient just to say I'm libertarian than to start itemizing everything I believe/support. Btw, labels are understood to be generalizations so it goes without saying that virtually all adherents to any school of thought occasionally part company with the official line of thinking.

 

Of course I understand all this.

But it is clear that people use terms like "liberal" like a hammer - they are going beyond the use of the term as a convenient generalization and are, I think, contributing to an unhealthy "siege" mentality. It cuts both ways, of course.

 

Andre, you are correct about the divisive language. Some forget that the other side is made up of human beings too. Labels are a way of poisonng the dialogue and de-humanizing our fellow people who hold differing views than our own. It is easier to attack a monolithic stereotype than to have a rational and productive discussion.

 

I agree that the term liberal can be used to define someone in a negative way: it's just that I don't have a problem with it. Politics is competitive and a "siege" mentality is inevitable.

 

And liberalism is to be defeated not lived with.

 

No, they don't.

 

But, and please do not take this as sermonizing towards you in particular, such a concession strikes me as decidedly against the Kingdom way. The obedient Christian will simply not use these terms as weapons - He will find a better way.

 

First, don't worry about offending me. Ever. It isn't possible. I like talking to people and nothing you can say is going to bother me beyond the immediate disagreement at hand.

Second, I don't see how being dog-eat-dog competitive is wrong in any sorta Biblical sense. If I'm a conservative who believes that liberalism = death of morality, then would I not have a moral responsibility to do anything just shy of violating verbatim Scripture to defeat it? I would have to think so.

Thirdly, while I don't see anything immoral about the blunt tone I (and others) use, I certainly prefer yours. :wavey:

 

The terms define their world view point. Nothing more.