Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Orwell, Vermont

Orwell, VT Car Consumer Discussions

Re: Just turned to CNN [hammerhead]

by steve_ on Mon Oct 27 14:53:54 PDT 2008

Electronic SL's & attached speed limiters are way too Orwellian, IMHO I could see this kind of stuff coming along first and eliminating the need for speed limiters. I can also see this kind of stuff tying in with Mr. Orwell. "GM and Opel say its system uses "everyday" hardware -- a microprocessor, GPS receivers and wireless LAN modules -- to communicate with vehicles within a few hundred meters of one another and exchange information such as location, speed, acceleration and direction of travel. And because more vehicles are coming equipped with radar-based sensors connected to safety and convenience tech such as adaptive cruise control and blind-spot monitoring, GM/Opel claims these can be implemented with its C2C system in "a more effective and affordable way."" GM Creates "Sixth Sense" Safety System That's Not Just for the Wealthy

Re: Why blame the UAW [duke23]

by dallasdude1 on Fri Aug 01 15:47:05 PDT 2008

The word liberal is in my vocabulary, go ahead and get it out Duke my friend. Liberal means you are a partisan of liberty in it’s social, political and economic forms. If that is a disease let it spread! Our founding fathers were liberals in the John Locke vein, who prized liberty over tradition, opposed concentrated power, and thought we should fear our government more than revere it. Adam Smith was a liberal, who understood that free trade and freedom were intertwined, and that while supporting steel tariffs might help you win votes in Pennsylvania, it distorts prices and ultimately steals from consumers to “pick winners” rather than letting markets decide. John Stuart Mill was a good liberal, describing the threat of popular opinion as being as much a tyranny as any King on a throne and arguing that people should be free to engage in whatever behavior they wish as long as it does not harm others. Now I get it that you are out to bash folks who’ve taken the liberal tradition and remixed it in ways you don’t approve, but that is no reason to take down a perfectly good word and misuse it. I hate to see you lined up with abusing language. Orwell wrote about how language would be manipulated to reduce the ability to ever speak the truth. That is what is happening to that word. People misuse liberalism as a slander to attack what they actually practice (that’s what you are doing) and others misuse it as a cover for statism or other types of collectivism (I think that is the disease you are after) but that doesn’t change the meaning of liberalism or the tradition it represents. Saying Americans “masses” don’t understand this usage is insulting. First their are no “masses”: just individuals who all have the means to learn what the word means and the tradition values. To give up on the proud tradition of liberalism and start using it as a slander is a mistake. You cut yourself off form the liberal tradition and make it that much harder to describe its values accurately to others. Don’t help build an Orwellian lexicon where “liberal” means something bad instead of something good. This is updownism. It’s a misuse of language that is beneath intelligent discourse. Liberalism is not ancient rhetoric – the issues liberals support are as pressing today in the fight for liberty around the world as it was when liberalism came ashore on the New World. There is certainly nothing conservative about fighting wars to protect human rights and institute democracy. It’s classic liberal radicalism of the Tom Paine variety that believes humans weren’t born with saddles on their backs to be ridden by others (apologies for mixing a paine reference and a jeffersonian image, but it helps the larger point). From what I’ve read, you are a classical liberal. It’s not semantics that is the issue – it’s philosophy, history, and ideas I care about. I don’t like seeing people mangle a political tradition – be it a socialist who believes in “social liberties” but not economic ones, or a modern day “conservative” who too often doesn’t recognize the source of their own liberal beliefs, and too often sleepwalks into mixing social conservatism (morality politics) with a lazy attitude toward protecting individual liberties (like the truly Orwellian named “patriot” act). Milton Friedman makes clear what is wrong with your use of the term “liberal” in the first chapter of Capitalism and Freedom. And Friedman may be ancient himself, but his explanation of classical liberalism is eminently relevant today. This idea that the term is archaic is asinine. It may not work on talk radio, but any educated person ought to know what liberalism actual refers to (though few actually do). As I tried to point out, it is eminently relevant in an age of liberal military adventurism where we are actively pushing back conservative regimes abroad to try and advance liberal values like free markets, free elections, and human rights. I’m with you on what is terrible about the Orwellian use of language, but you are doing it yourself by framing liberalism as a boogie man. You are trying to make white mean black and trying to blame it on the “masses” or mainstream usage is such a cop out. Step out of the matrix. Sure, you and George Will may want to conserve the nation’s liberal tradition, but you are no conservative in the traditional sense of the word. I know of a caliph or two who has a rather conservative outlook on the world, and it is pretty obvious you aren’t supporting his side in this global battle. It is too bad that people talk about politics at a Rush Limbaugh level and abuse language by turning liberal into a bad word. I don’t think it takes us very far toward understanding the world around us. John Kerry and George Bush agree on far more issues than they disagree on – they represent the left and right wing of “American liberalism” – and to my mind, represent a sad chapter in the rather exhausted story of “American liberalism”, where neither is above supporting tariffs or takings when expedient or curbing liberty when political popular. But if you aspire to keep company with folks who read Friedman and understand what he is talking about, you need to come to terms with the fact that liberalism isn’t the sickness you are claiming it is. It’s more like the cure. I would like to move Liberals to a more classical and orthodox Liberal philosophy, something within the spirit of those early Republicans who strove for the abolition of slavery.

Re: Consider This... [imidazol97]

by ruking1 on Wed Jul 16 17:08:37 PDT 2008

Then of course if you are vegetarian, you might be rationed because those "food sources" actually EAT C02. So what is more important given the fascist policies people getting "FAT" or saving the EAF from C02.....? So do we now give "FAT FOLKS" time to lose weight and if they don't we now execute them because they produce too much C02? (taking the place of vestial virgins, etc etc) ..... George Orwell's 1984 has been happening for MANY MANY YEARS.

Re: There will always be [boaz47]

by kdshapiro on Wed Feb 06 10:52:37 PST 2008

Is talking on a cell phone in public rude? Maybe it is, but so is singing and talking loud or listening to your music so the rest of us can hear it. It is just sad to see so many willing to dive into Orwell’s book so willingly. It is true that when we give up freedom for security we deserve neither. Honestly, you are being a bit overdramatic. Having a cell phone law on the books is not up any security or liberty, in fact it adds to security and peace of mind. Is talking on a cell phone in public rude? Maybe it is, but so is singing and talking loud or listening to your music so the rest of us can hear it. In some places you can get arrested for it. Singing and talking out loud is legal as long as one is not violating local noise laws. If we can’t learn to use the technology we develop maybe we don’t deserve the technology Why don't you be the first to lay down your technology?

There will always be

by boaz47 on Wed Feb 06 10:43:49 PST 2008

Resistance to new technology and a wish for simpler times but in reality things never revert to the good old days. Humans have always moved forward and learned to use the technology they develop. Once we have had the opportunity for instant communication it is pretty hard to take it away from us. No body drives without distractions. No one even tries to drive without distractions. People have had food, conversed with passengers, and corrected children, slowed down to look at accidents as long as we have had cars. In fact more than likely before we have had cars. We hold hands with our loved ones while driving. We change radio stations while driving. We remove a jacket while driving because it gets too hot, an act that required you to remove your seat belt briefly. And no one would suggest a specific law banning any of these activities. Saying that none of these distractions are as bad as cell phones is simply a cop out because many of these problems have been going on much longer than we have had cell phones. To say that cell phones are more distracting than CB in big rigs is another cop out. A big truck could do a lot more damage than a car. Is talking on a cell phone in public rude? Maybe it is, but so is singing and talking loud or listening to your music so the rest of us can hear it. It is just sad to see so many willing to dive into Orwell’s book so willingly. It is true that when we give up freedom for security we deserve neither. If we can’t learn to use the technology we develop maybe we don’t deserve the technology. I for one just don’t feel my fellow citizens are that slow. There may be a learning curve but we will learn it like we have any other technology.

Re: Edmunds Questions/Answers [greanpea68]

by madmanmoo on Mon Dec 31 07:47:47 PST 2007

Oh ya, baby! That's even with a ton of my answers being deleted. Check it out, I think you'll get a kick out of it. Only downside is, my humor is NOT appreciated. It's like George Orwell's 1984 over there. -moo