More liberal hate speech

[bhk]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/12/30/more_liberal_hate_speech/

JEFF JACOBY
More liberal hate speech
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 30, 2004

AS IT DOES every year, the empty folder I labeled "Liberal Hate Speech" in January had grown to a thick sheaf of clippings by December. 2004 wasn't even a week old when two videos explicitly comparing George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler appeared on the website of the liberal group MoveOn. They were entries in a contest soliciting "really creative ads" that would help voters "understand the truth about George Bush."

So began another year in which liberals engaged in, and mostly got away with, grotesque slanders and slurs about conservatives -- the kind of poisonous rhetoric that should be beyond the pale in a decent society. Once again, too many on the left -- not crackpots from the fringe, but mainstream players and pundits -- chose to demonize conservatives as monsters rather than debate their ideas on the merits.

As in years past, Republicans were almost routinely associated with Nazi Germany. Former Vice President Al Gore referred to GOP activists as "brown shirts." Newsday columnist Hugh Pearson likened the Republican National Convention to the "Nazi rallies held in Germany during the reign of Adolf Hitler." Linda Ronstadt said that the Republican victory on Election Day meant "we've got a new bunch of Hitlers." Chuck Turner, a Boston city councilor, smeared National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as "a tool of white leaders," like "a Jewish person working for Hitler."

Such Nazi labeling is no less disgusting when it comes from Republicans, of course. According to Bob Woodward, Secretary of State Colin Powell described Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith as running a separate government out of his "Gestapo office." Commentator Ralph Peters, writing in the New York Post, accused Democrat Howard Dean of using the tactics of Hitler and Goebbels to silence his competitors. Too many conservatives and libertarians refer to antismoking extremists as "tobacco Nazis," or to the humorless critics of fast food as "food Nazis." Whether it comes from the right or the left, language like that is vile.

Overwhelmingly, though, political hate speech today comes from the left. It has increasingly become a habit of leftist argumentation to simply dismiss conservative ideas as evil or noxious rather than rebut them with facts and evidence.

That is why there was no uproar when Cameron Diaz declared that rape might be legalized if women didn't turn out to vote for John Kerry. Or when Walter Cronkite told Larry King that the videotape of Osama bin Laden that surfaced just before the election was "probably set up" by Karl Rove. Or when Alfred A. Knopf published Nicholson Baker's "Checkpoint," a novel in which two Bush-haters talk about assassinating the president. "I'm going to kill that bastard," one character rages.

Bill Moyers warned a television audience on Election Day that if Kerry won narrowly, "I think there'd be an effort to mount a coup, quite frankly. . . . The right wing is not going to accept it." Chevy Chase, hosting a People for the American Way awards ceremony at the Kennedy Center in Washington, slammed Bush as "an uneducated, real, lying schmuck." A cartoon by the widely syndicated Ted Rall described Pat Tillman, who gave up his NFL career to enlist in the Army and was then killed in Afghanistan, as a "sap" and an "idiot."

So many examples, so little space. A political flier in Tennessee, depicting Bush as a mentally disabled sprinter, bore the message: "Voting for Bush is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

The St. Petersburg, Fla., Democratic Club took out an ad calling for the death of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq, `We have our good days and our bad days,' " the ad read. "We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say, `This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger." Fantasies of murder likewise animated British pundit Charlie Brooker, who ended his Oct. 24 column in the Guardian with a plea for Bush's death: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?" Brooker later assured readers that he "deplores violence of any kind" and had meant his call for an assassin only as "an ironic joke."

But the "joke" of left-wing hate speech stopped being funny a long time ago. There is room in the marketplace of ideas for passionate, even angry, rhetoric, but there are also lines that, as a matter of decency and civic hygiene, should not be crossed. The violent invective so often hurled at conservatives pollutes the democratic stream from which all of us drink. Democrats no less than Republicans should want to shut those polluters down.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

Due to the double standard of the american media, conservatives are hounded for saying anything that might even be construed as hate speech while libs actual hate speech is glossed over.

[kvrdave]

But they are tolerant, right? They like diversity, from what I hear.

rotfl

[Draven]

So many examples, so little space. A political flier in Tennessee, depicting Bush as a mentally disabled sprinter, bore the message: "Voting for Bush is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

:lol: I forgot about that...

[wendersfan]

But they are tolerant, right? They like diversity, from what I hear.In my experience, neither liberals nor conservatives value diversity of thought and speech much at all. Liberals <i>say</i> they value diversity of race and ethnicity more than conservatives, but they need to back that up with action a bit more, given the present makeup of the Bush cabinet.

[adamblast]

Wow, what a crock of shit. Mr. Jacoby is exactly doing the kind of gross generalizing and name-calling he claims to abhor. Most of his examples are extreme reaches. And comparing someone to Hitler is not necessarily hate speech. It may be, among other things, stupid, lazy or extremist. In Bush's case, it might even be understandable--if unjustified, and certainly politically unwise--hyperbole about an administration that many consider truly reprehensible and dangerous.Overwhelmingly, though, political hate speech today comes from the left. It has increasingly become a habit of leftist argumentation to simply dismiss conservative ideas as evil or noxious rather than rebut them with facts and evidence.

That is why there was no uproar when Cameron Diaz declared that rape might be legalized if women didn't turn out to vote for John Kerry.Maybe there was no uproar because she's an idiot? Because it wasn't much of a story? Like the OP, this guy seems to think that newsworthiness of an item has to do with how much political hay against the left it can muster.

[kvrdave]

Hate monger -ohbfrank-

:p

[classicman2]

Wow, what a crock of shit. Mr. Jacoby is exactly doing the kind of gross generalizing and name-calling he claims to abhor. Most of his examples are extreme reaches. And comparing someone to Hitler is not necessarily hate speech. It may be, among other things, stupid, lazy or extremist. In Bush's case, it might even be understandable--if unjustified, and certainly politically unwise--hyperbole about an administration that many consider truly reprehensible and dangerous.Maybe there was no uproar because she's an idiot? Because it wasn't much of a story? Like the OP, this guy seems to think that newsworthiness of an item has to do with how much political hay against the left it can muster.


But using derogatory names for homosexuals constitutes hate speech?

A little consistency doesn't hurt. ;)

[adamblast]

Hate monger -ohbfrank-

:p
I'd call you a slumlord nazi, but I can't afford to start an embargo.

[kvrdave]

:lol: My ace in the hole.

[adamblast]

But using derogatory names for homosexuals constitutes hate speech?

A little consistency doesn't hurt. ;)Calling someone a ****** or a faggot to their face meets my definition of hate speech. Not that I think it should be outlawed... but it is dangerous, threatening, and full of hate. One can easily think there's something fascistic about this-or-that government or politician without being any of those things.

[Jason]

If righty tightys didn't go around calling everyone who doesn't blindly adhere to their point of view "america haters" and "traitors", I might be concerned about these so called "bush haters".

And Bill Moyers thoughts about a narrow Kerry win was was right on the money.

[classicman2]

If righty tightys didn't go around calling everyone who doesn't blindly adhere to their point of view "america haters" and "traitors", I might be concerned about these so called "bush haters".

And Bill Moyers thoughts about a narrow Kerry win was was right on the money.

Word of advice - take anything, the Austin socialist, Bill Moyers says with a large grain of salt. ;)

[bhk]

If righty tightys didn't go around calling everyone who doesn't blindly adhere to their point of view "america haters" and "traitors", I might be concerned about these so called "bush haters".

More hate speech while defending liberal hate speech! This is great.

[Draven]

More hate speech while defending liberal hate speech! This is great.

bhk, what are you trying to accomplish with this thread?

[classicman2]

bhk, what are you trying to accomplish with this thread?

I would imagine the same thing that most everyone tries to accomplish when starting a thread in this forum.

[DVD Polizei]

When you compare someone to Hitler, it really shows how much intelligence you have.

Which is a big fat ZERO, in case I'm nebulous.

[bhk]

bhk, what are you trying to accomplish with this thread?

To show the peole that usually whine about hate speech(esp. from people like Limbaugh and Hannity, and Coulter) are usually given a free-pass when they themselves engage in it.
Contrast the treatment of Trent Lott to R. Byrd(when he called someone a wigger).

[DVD Polizei]

How about we agree that everyone participates in hate speech, but the Democrats just really sucked at it this election, and lost.

[Mordred]

When you compare someone to Hitler, it really shows how much intelligence you have.

Which is a big fat ZERO, in case I'm nebulous.Guess I shouldn't start my "Stalin or Hitler: Who was worse??" thread then. I wouldn't want anyone to think I was dumb :(

[DVD Polizei]

That's right. Hitler-Free, baby. Hitler-Free.

[adamblast]

More hate speech while defending liberal hate speech! This is great.You seem to have confused, probably willfully, the difference between hate speech and any generalizations about ones' political opponents.

[Brain Stew]

It's true liberals are the only ones to call those who oppose them Nazis. (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=402068)

[classicman2]

Have you entertained the thought that maybe it's you that is confused?

[adamblast]

Have you entertained the thought that maybe it's you that is confused?I am often confused. And it's often very entertaining. :)

[Draven]

To show the peole that usually whine about hate speech(esp. from people like Limbaugh and Hannity, and Coulter) are usually given a free-pass when they themselves engage in it.
Contrast the treatment of Trent Lott to R. Byrd(when he called someone a wigger).

Are you talking about people in general or this board?

Because I think most of us here recognize that both sides engage in "hateful" speech about the opposing parties. It seems like a colossal waste of time to point out what everyone already knows, but if it makes you happy...

[bhk]

Are you talking about people in general or this board?
Mainly in general but there have been some on this board.


but if it makes you happy...

My goal for 2005 is to be equanimous in praise or insult like the spiritual leader of our sect. It is hard but I have to try at least.

[Draven]

My goal for 2005 is to be equanimous in praise or insult like the spiritual leader of our sect. It is hard but I have to try at least.

Well, a grateful nation thanks you.

Because without you, I'd have no idea that liberals say bad things. You've opened my eyes.

[Trigger]

you title the thread "more liberal hate speech" as if to suggest that it is the liberal m.o. to spew nothing but ignorant hate speech towards the opposition. conservatives are the champions of hate speech IMO... they even somehow managed to turn "liberal" into a dirty word in recent years. it's to the point that calling someone a liberal just sounds like an insult.

[classicman2]

When a Democratic is in the White House (however seldom that is ;) ) conservatives are the champions of 'hate talk.' When a Republican is in the White House (frequently) liberals are the champions of 'hate talk.'

Therefore, since Repubs occupy the White House more of the time, it's only logical to assume that liberals are more the campions of 'hate talk.'

I don't see anyone can disagree with this obvious logic. :D

[Trigger]

1 George Washington 30 Apr 1789 04 Mar1797 no party
2 John Adams 04 Mar 1797 04 Mar 801 Federalist
3 Thomas Jefferson 04 Mar 1801 04 Mar 1809 Democratic - Republican
4 James Madison 04 Mar 1809 04 Mar 1817 Democratic - Republican
5 James Monroe 04 Mar 1817 04 Mar 1825 Democratic - Republican
6 John Quincy Adams 04 Mar 1825 04 Mar 1829 Democratic - Republican
9 William Henry Harrison 04 Mar 1841 04 Apr 1841 Whig
10 John Tyler 04 Apr 1841 04 Mar 1845 Whig
12 Zachary Taylor 05 Mar 1849 09 Jul 1850 Whig
13 Millard Fillmore 09 Jul 1850 04 Mar 1853 Whig

7 Andrew Jackson 04 Mar 1829 04 Mar 1837 Democrat - 8yrs
8 Martin Van Buren 04 Mar 1837 04 Mar 1841 Democrat - 4yrs
11 James Knox Polk 04 Mar 1845 03 Mar 1849 Democrat - 4yrs
14 Franklin Pierce 04 Mar 1853 04 Mar 1857 Democrat - 4yrs
15 James Buchanan 04 Mar 1857 04 Mar 1861 Democrat - 4yrs
22 Grover Cleveland 04 Mar 1885 04 Mar 1889 Democrat - 4yrs
24 Grover Cleveland 04 Mar 1893 04 Mar 1897 Democrat - 4yrs
28 Woodrow Wilson 04 Mar 1913 04 Mar 1921 Democrat - 8yrs
32 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 04 Mar 1933 12 Apr 1945 Democrat - 8yrs
33 Harry S. Truman 12 Apr 1945 20 Jan 1953 Democrat - 8yrs
35 John Fitzgerald Kennedy 20 Jan 1961 22 Nov 1963 Democrat - 2yrs
36 Lyndon Baines Johnson 22 Nov 1963 20 Jan 1969 Democrat - 6yrs
39 James Earl 'Jimmy' Carter 20 Jan 1977 20 Jan 1981 Democrat - 4yrs
42 William Jefferson 'Bill' Clinton 20 Jan 1993 20 Jan 2001 Democrat - 8yrs
total = 76

16 Abraham Lincoln 04 Mar 1861 15 Apr 1865 Republican - 4yrs
17 Andrew Johnson 15 Apr 1865 04 Mar 1869 Republican - 4yrs
18 Ulysses Simpson Grant 04 Mar 1869 04 Mar 1877 Republican - 8yrs
19 Rutherford Birchard Hayes 04 Mar 1877 04 Mar 1881 Republican - 4yrs
20 James Abram Garfield 04 Mar 1881 19 Sep 1881 Republican - .5yrs
21 Chester Alan Arthur 20 Sep 1881 04 Mar 1885 Republican - 3.5yrs
23 Benjamin Harrison 04 Mar 1889 04 Mar 1893 Republican - 4yrs
25 William McKinley 04 Mar 1897 14 Sep 1901 Republican - 4yrs
26 Theodore Roosevelt 14 Sep 1901 04 Mar 1909 Republican - 8yrs
27 William Howard Taft 04 Mar 1909 04 Mar 1913 Republican - 4yrs
29 Warren Gamaliel Harding 04 Mar 1921 02 Aug 1923 Republican - 2yrs
30 Calvin Coolidge 03 Aug 1923 04 Mar 1929 Republican - 6yrs
31 Herbert Clark Hoover 04 Mar 1929 04 Mar 1933 Republican - 4yrs
34 Dwight David Eisenhower 20 Jan 1953 20 Jan 1961 Republican - 8yrs
37 Richard Milhous Nixon 20 Jan 1969 09 Aug 1974 Republican - 5yrs
38 Gerald Rudolph Ford 09 Aug 1974 20 Jan 1977 Republican - 3yrs
40 Ronald Wilson Reagan 20 Jan 1981 20 Jan 1989 Republican - 8yrs
41 George Herbert Walker Bush 20 Jan 1989 20 Jan 1993 Republican - 4yrs
43 George Walker Bush 20 Jan 2001 Republican - 4yrs (so far)
= 88

not counting democratic republicans or whigs, it's 76yrs to 88yrs - not such a huge discrepancy to warrant using "frequently" and "seldom" - unless my math is way off... I wasn't being too careful. Wow - all that time I just spent to make not much of a point. Oh well.

[sracer]

you title the thread "more liberal hate speech" as if to suggest that it is the liberal m.o. to spew nothing but ignorant hate speech towards the opposition. conservatives are the champions of hate speech IMO... they even somehow managed to turn "liberal" into a dirty word in recent years. it's to the point that calling someone a liberal just sounds like an insult.
Well, it must've stuck... because I don't see anyone parading around proud that they are a liberal.

You make it sound like "word confiscation" is something new. It happens all the time. When did everyone agree that "gay" was a synonym for homosexual? Or that the suffix "phobia" could be interchanged with the prefix "anti"? And since when has conservatism been equated with nazism?!

Please.... both ends of the political and social spectrums are guilty, so let's not act like this is something new.

[BigPete]

they even somehow managed to turn "liberal" into a dirty word in recent years. it's to the point that calling someone a liberal just sounds like an insult.

I'm only 25, so maybe my perspective is skewed by the % of my life spent in 'recent years', but liberal has never really had a positive connotation for me, even as far back as grade school. I most associate the word with usage like "a liberal translation" which implies (to me) fast, loose, and not particularly accurate. Or "liberal with his praise" which suggests that it is applied freely, and possibly indescriminantly.

I don't know who first used the word politically and when, but if it was self-applied, I would have to question that person's decision simply based on my own prejudices.

[Thor Simpson]

Applying butter in a liberal fashion is very tasty but will clog your arteries.

[bhk]

you title the thread "more liberal hate speech"

That's the title of the article.

Because without you, I'd have no idea that liberals say bad things. You've opened my eyes.
If only one person is coverted from the darkside, it will have been worth it.

[movielib]

I'm only 25, so maybe my perspective is skewed by the % of my life spent in 'recent years', but liberal has never really had a positive connotation for me, even as far back as grade school. I most associate the word with usage like "a liberal translation" which implies (to me) fast, loose, and not particularly accurate. Or "liberal with his praise" which suggests that it is applied freely, and possibly indescriminantly.

I don't know who first used the word politically and when, but if it was self-applied, I would have to question that person's decision simply based on my own prejudices.
Here's a decent enumeration of the principles of liberalism as the word was first used in a political/economic sense:

http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/essay.html

an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.
Because modern liberals stole the term and got it to stick to them (circa late 19th century), these old-fashioned liberals are now called "classical liberals." They bear a remarkable resemblance to libertarians.

[Thor Simpson]

Classical liberals sound a lot better than the "government healthcare welfare no tax breaks for the wealthy" liberals.

[Julie Walker]

And since when has conservatism been equated with nazism?!


Since they have proven to be lieing hypocrites who are not for the people,and actually doing their best to take the rights away from those they disagree with.

:D


I would love too meet a conservative and republican who uses common sense and does'nt kiss party ass 24/7,who does not put on the good old boy facade,while looking down on you behind closed doors.

Yet I have yet to meet any unfortunately,which has not given me a good impression of 'that' side of the political landscape.

Also when looking at their hate propoganda against homosexuals(or anyone in general..ie "Anti-american since you disagree with me!) and the exaggerations they cling too. It is no different than nazi propoganda against jews,gays,crippes,other races...and other 'deviants' who they make out to be as inhuman as possible. Which 'okays' peoples justification for hating those groups of people.

Of course then the conservatives lie and say they 'hate' no one but 'care' dearly about people 'falling' into that 'lifestyle' and try to 'save' them via brainwashing sexual repression(which leads to guilt,suicide,misery). Which again proves them living in denial manipulative hypocrites who have evil intentions,not good.

This link will compare the similarities between the two to further evident how similar they really are,which is why the nazi comparison is not 'too' far off whether you like it or not:)

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html

[Thor Simpson]

Since they have proven to be lieing hypocrites who are not for the people,and actually doing their best to take the rights away from those they disagree with.
Riiiiiiiight... please generalize me some more.

[darkessenz]

This thread is already achieving great heights, but I thought I would put my two cents in. Hate speech, I think, usually refers to criticism based primarily upon emotional attacks on character without proper reasoning.

In the case of comparing Bush's policies to various authoritarian leaders (Stalin, Hitler, etc) there are two sides. Using only Hitler's name is almost always hate filled because it generally harnesses shock value instead of intelligence or rational thought. Comparing the actual policies is a little less obscene, regardless of whether you agree with the comparison (just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it hate speech).

[Draven]

Riiiiiiiight... please generalize me some more.

The entire article posted at the beginning of this thread is a generalization.

What's the difference?

[X]

Because modern liberals stole the term and got it to stick to them (circa late 19th century), these old-fashioned liberals are now called "classical liberals." They bear a remarkable resemblance to libertarians.I prefer the term I use to describe my political philosophy -- neo-liberal.

[Julie Walker]

This thread is already achieving great heights, but I thought I would put my two cents in. Hate speech, I think, usually refers to criticism based primarily upon emotional attacks on character without proper reasoning.

In the case of comparing Bush's policies to various authoritarian leaders (Stalin, Hitler, etc) there are two sides. Using only Hitler's name is almost always hate filled because it generally harnesses shock value instead of intelligence or rational thought. Comparing the actual policies is a little less obscene, regardless of whether you agree with the comparison (just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it hate speech).


I agree :)

[Tracer Bullet]

I prefer the term I use to describe my political philosophy -- neo-liberal.

That's similar to the name I gave my cooking philosophy: "neo-delicious".

[Caliking]

Since they have proven to be lieing hypocrites who are not for the people,and actually doing their best to take the rights away from those they disagree with.

:D


I would love too meet a conservative and republican who uses common sense and does'nt kiss party ass 24/7,who does not put on the good old boy facade,while looking down on you behind closed doors.

Yet I have yet to meet any unfortunately,which has not given me a good impression of 'that' side of the political landscape.

Also when looking at their hate propoganda against homosexuals(or anyone in general..ie "Anti-american since you disagree with me!) and the exaggerations they cling too. It is no different than nazi propoganda against jews,gays,crippes,other races...and other 'deviants' who they make out to be as inhuman as possible. Which 'okays' peoples justification for hating those groups of people.

Of course then the conservatives lie and say they 'hate' no one but 'care' dearly about people 'falling' into that 'lifestyle' and try to 'save' them via brainwashing sexual repression(which leads to guilt,suicide,misery). Which again proves them living in denial manipulative hypocrites who have evil intentions,not good.

This link will compare the similarities between the two to further evident how similar they really are,which is why the nazi comparison is not 'too' far off whether you like it or not:)

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html


Oh man...i wish you would just stop already!

Quote from another political talk forum:
Originally Posted by Julie Walker

"As much as the extreme right wing HYPOCRITES spreading HATE in the name of God... As much as I HATE Bush and his adminstration and his hardcore followers..."

my reply:
hmm...i just found that a bit interesting. looks like somebody is spreading some (h-a-t-e). i think we are all hypocritical.

and you are still doing it!

[Goldblum]

they even somehow managed to turn "liberal" into a dirty word in recent years. it's to the point that calling someone a liberal just sounds like an insult.

Success! :banana:

[Goldblum]

I would love too meet a conservative and republican who uses common sense and does'nt kiss party ass 24/7,who does not put on the good old boy facade,while looking down on you behind closed doors.

Yet I have yet to meet any unfortunately,which has not given me a good impression of 'that' side of the political landscape.

We're here. We're just not all waving our hands to you. But if you wish... :wave:

[bhk]

The entire article posted at the beginning of this thread is a generalization.

That is incorrect. He gives specific examples.

[wildcatlh]

It's true liberals are the only ones to call those who oppose them Nazis. (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=402068)

::waits patiently for a reply to this one::

[Draven]

That is incorrect. He gives specific examples.

So began another year in which liberals engaged in, and mostly got away with, grotesque slanders and slurs about conservatives -- the kind of poisonous rhetoric that should be beyond the pale in a decent society. Once again, too many on the left -- not crackpots from the fringe, but mainstream players and pundits -- chose to demonize conservatives as monsters rather than debate their ideas on the merits.

Notice it's not "some liberals engaged in..," it's all of us.

He might give a few examples (some of which, like the Cameron Diaz one, are completely irrelavant) but he uses those examples to make generalizations about liberals. I could do the same thing by picking out stuff that Coulter and her ilk have said, but I think it's pretty obvious that both sides have people that use this kind of speech. This reiterates the uselessness of the article.

It's so stupid I can't believe it didn't orginate from a blog.

[classicman2]

Can we agree that whether you're a conservative, a centrist, or a liberal - liberals tend to say more outrageous things than the other two? The reason for this is that liberals tend not to live in the real world. :)

[Toonview]

I hate you all.


(a proud Liberal who was feeling left out...)

[Tracer Bullet]

Can we agree that whether you're a conservative, a centrist, or a liberal - liberals tend to say more outrageous things than the other two? The reason for this is that liberals tend not to live in the real world. :)

No, sorry.

[classicman2]

Yes, sorry!

Conservatives, and definitely centrists, tend to look at the world as it exists.
Liberals (often times) have a tendency to look at the world as they wish or hope it to be.

[Toonview]

Hmmph. You'd think the property values would be lower out here in the "not real world". Based on my mortgage, I'd say my Liberal world is a bit too real.

[wildcatlh]

Yes, sorry!

Conservatives, and definitely centrists, tend to look at the world as it exists.
Liberals (often times) have a tendency to look at the world as they wish or hope it to be.

Liberals tend to look at a fantasy world. Conservatives tend to look at the real world... minus about 50 years. :)

[JasonF]

Yes, sorry!

Conservatives, and definitely centrists, tend to look at the world as it exists.
Liberals (often times) have a tendency to look at the world as they wish or hope it to be.

And cranky old farts have a tendency to try to sum up the world in tired old cliches.

The far right in mainstream U.S. politics is as idealistic as the far left -- they're just idealistic about different things. But Grover Norquist's fantasies about strangling the federal government in his bathtub aren't any more realistic that Noam Chomsky's fantasies about redistributing everybody's wealth. And don't even get me started on the extreme pro-life's vision of a world with no abortions ever ever ever.

[sfsdfd]

Conservatives, and definitely centrists, tend to look at the world as it exists.
Liberals (often times) have a tendency to look at the world as they wish or hope it to be.
Do you seriously think that your statement can be objectively assessed?

A more practical assessment is that conservatives look at the world from the perspective of corporations, while liberals look at the world from the perspective of individuals.

- David Stein

[classicman2]

Let's take 2 areas:

1. Foreign policy - liberals have a tendency to believe this country's foreign policy should be based on something other than U. S. national interests.

2. Energy - liberals have a naive view about energy, and this country's continuing primary need for fossil fuels as the principal source of energy for the next 2 decades at least. They ignore it and dream dreams about alternative fuels that are not going to solve the problem, at least for the foreseeable future.

Conservatives, IMO, take a more realistic view on these two areas.

In the area of foreign policy, this has not always been true. Henry 'Scoop' Jackson had a realistic view of foreign policy, and he openly stated that view. Scoop hasn't been around for quite awhile. There are liberals, I assume, who take a realistic view of energy policy. I just don't know of any. Their voices, if they exist, are not heard.

BTW: No one said anything about abortion. Granted, more conservatives are opposed to abortion than liberals. However, there a number of liberals who don't fit that mold. Abortion crosses the philosophical plane.

[Toonview]

Let's take 2 areas:

1. Foreign policy - liberals have a tendency to believe this country's foreign policy should be based on something other than U. S. national interests.

2. Energy - liberals have a naive view about energy, and this country's continuing primary need for fossil fuels as the principal source of energy for the next 2 decades at least. They ignore it and dream dreams about alternative fuels that are not going to solve the problem, at least for the foreseeable future.

Conservatives, IMO, take a more realistic view on these two areas.



What a load of stereotypycal talking point crapola.

1. Liberals believe in America's interests, even in America's interests first, but aren't we aren't so self centered and thick headed to think that means that the interests of our friends around the World shouldn't at least be considered in our final decisions. That's just being a good neighbor.

2. The future is something you plan for and try to shape. Ignoring that it's coming is the naive thing. Complacency isn't going to fix our fuel problem.

Maybe you need to talk to more "Liberals" outside your circle. Or maybe you should just be less concerned about labels. Conservative, Liberal, what the hell ever. We're all Americans.

[classicman2]

=Toonville

Conservative, Liberal, what the hell ever. We're all Americans.


And that platitude has just what to do with what we're talking about?

If it's all stereotypical crapola, I invite you to look at a noted liberal's (John Kerry) energy platform in the 2004 presidential campaign. If you believe that was a realistic energy plan, then I suggest you broaden your circle to include some folks that know something about energy.

[Toonview]

Gee I dunno, what does your "Liberals have a tendency to..." have to do with a thread about Hate Speech?

And if you want to fault John Kerry's energy platform, go right ahead. Generalizing the way all or even most Liberals think is just a lot of hot air. Just another way for you to conveniently lump a bunch of folks into a pile for easy storage. Most probably don't even know what it was. Or care. I don't know too many "Liberals" who went to the polls because of Kerry's energy plan.

Kiss kiss

[classicman2]

Or care. I don't know too many "Liberals" who went to the polls because of Kerry's energy plan.

Since, IMO, energy will dwarf all other issues in a few years, maybe people should go to the polls just for that reason.

[sfsdfd]

1. Foreign policy - liberals have a tendency to believe this country's foreign policy should be based on something other than U. S. national interests.
As Toonville notes, that's bullshit. We believe that America's interests are heavily dependent on our relationships with other countries. Conservatives, at least the current crop, act as though we can bully everyone else into doing what we want, on every issue, without consequences.
Energy - liberals have a naive view about energy, and this country's continuing primary need for fossil fuels as the principal source of energy for the next 2 decades at least. They ignore it and dream dreams about alternative fuels that are not going to solve the problem, at least for the foreseeable future.
Similarly, conservatives ignore the facts that oil is (a) a finite resource, subject to increasing scarcity and rising costs that will make it unusable in 50 years, and (b) highly damaging to the entire world.

On both issues, conservatives exhibit severe, selfish myopia. This extends also to almost every other issue: employment balance, global stability, civil liberties, the economy...

- David Stein

[classicman2]

And liberals ignore that facts concerning fossil fuels and our continued use (primary source of energy) of them. I'd call that myopic, wouldn't you?

[Trigger]

1. I (and some liberals I know) believe our foreign policies shouldn't make us enemies or hurt other nations. if the only way to further US national interests is to fuck over everyone else, then we deserve to be bombed and invaded and hated... and you'll never be able to convince me that screwing over people in another country to make our lives a little better is a good thing. This isn't a party issue either because democrats are just as guilty of fucking over foreign countries as Republicans are.

2. Not that it's relevant now, but what was wrong with Kerry's plan? I didn't see any specific details of the plan (like maybe he wanted to power cars with unicorn farts or something), but the basic outline sounded like the right direction. Reduce reliance on a non-renewable resource that other countries control and that pollute the environment? sounds good. Research new sources of clean and renewable energy so we can be self-reliant? even better. Encourage car companies to manufacture fuel-efficient cars and offer incentives to people who buy and own them? what's wrong with that? Eliminate our need for middle east oil? Who loses in this one except rich middle east oil tycoons?

[sfsdfd]

And liberals ignore that facts concerning fossil fuels and our continued use (primary source of energy) of them.
I can't even parse that. Can you elaborate?

- David Stein

[Trigger]

And liberals ignore that facts concerning fossil fuels and our continued use (primary source of energy) of them. I'd call that myopic, wouldn't you?
liberals ignore that facts concerning fossil fuels and our continued use of them what? what about the facts? was this an incomplete sentence or did you use "that" instead of "the" or something? Either way, I'd like to hear you elaborate on your expert opinion of fossil fuels and energy reform and explain why liberals are all so ignorant.

[classicman2]

Kerry's plan to make this country energy independent in 10 years was totally unrealistic.
<i>Any</i> prediction is unrealistic. By definition, research is unpredictable. It's just as ridiculous to try to estimate when we'll conquer AIDS.

So I looked at the 10-year time frame not as a serious estimate, but as a statement of priorities. It's human nature - certainly for individuals, but <i>absolutely</i> for governments and nations - to maintain the status quo unless a serious problem arises. We can't ignore our current energy needs, but finding alternative sources needs to be a <i>critical</i> priority.

- David Stein

[Trigger]

energy experts suggesting we can't be energy independent are only factoring in the current available technologies and resources.

[Thor Simpson]

The entire article posted at the beginning of this thread is a generalization.

What's the difference?
American A: The French are stupid.

Frenchman B: Yeah, well Americans are asses.

American C: Thanks. Please generalize me some more.

Frenchman B: Well, American A's comments were generalizations... what's the difference?

American C: Deux maux ne font pas un juste. Et le raccordement libéral-français est exagéré !

[Suprmallet]

I'm only 25, so maybe my perspective is skewed by the % of my life spent in 'recent years', but liberal has never really had a positive connotation for me, even as far back as grade school. I most associate the word with usage like "a liberal translation" which implies (to me) fast, loose, and not particularly accurate. Or "liberal with his praise" which suggests that it is applied freely, and possibly indescriminantly.

I don't know who first used the word politically and when, but if it was self-applied, I would have to question that person's decision simply based on my own prejudices.

That's funny, because I've often seen conservative with negative connotations, as well. Used purely in a grammatical sense, it's often used to describe someone whose decisions fall short of what they should be. You often hear this when looking through past military campaigns. Conservatism is used in those discussions quite often to show how or why a particular military leader failed.

So, really, I think in a political sense, the term "liberal" becoming a dirty word has nothing to do with the use of the word in everyday English. Frankly, I'm quite proud to say I'm a liberal.

And really, anyone who complains about hate speech from the left must have a massive blind spot where Ann Coulter resides. Her books are the worst kind of political "commentary." Instead of honestly assessing the viewpoint of the left, she denounces all of them as fools at best, and dangerous psychopaths at worst, and then says the only viable solution is to eradicate the views of the left entirely. To me that's far more dangerous than comparing Bush to Hitler. Most people don't fall for that kind of rhetoric. But Coulter is far more insidious. Using (really bad) humor, she wins over her audience and gets them to entertain the idea that the left should simply be silenced. She alone is a massive step back for the state of political discourse in this country.

[sracer]

Similarly, conservatives ignore the facts that oil is (a) a finite resource, subject to increasing scarcity and rising costs that will make it unusable in 50 years, and (b) highly damaging to the entire world.

On both issues, conservatives exhibit severe, selfish myopia. This extends also to almost every other issue: employment balance, global stability, civil liberties, the economy...- David Stein
I remember in the "oil scare of the 70's" "they" said that we were supposed to have only 20-30 years of oil left and that we need serious energy conservation and research. Well, turns out "they" were wrong. 30 years later we're using more oil than ever before, and there's no signs of a "natural" end to this resource.

Look around, even those who now say the same thing aren't "walking the walk" themselves. I don't know of any liberals who aren't driving gas-guzzling SUVs, and aren't fully self-indulgent in the disposable consumerism.

Political ideology has virtually nothing to do with this. People are people. People are basically selfish, and creatures of comfort. The energy issue makes some people feel better about themselves... that they are somehow "better people" because... "they care more."

[Draven]

I remember in the "oil scare of the 70's" "they" said that we were supposed to have only 20-30 years of oil left and that we need serious energy conservation and research. Well, turns out "they" were wrong. 30 years later we're using more oil than ever before, and there's no signs of a "natural" end to this resource.


Will oil run out eventually: yes or no?

Or do you only care about what happens in your lifetime?

[sfsdfd]

I remember in the "oil scare of the 70's" "they" said that we were supposed to have only 20-30 years of oil left and that we need serious energy conservation and research. Well, turns out "they" were wrong. 30 years later we're using more oil than ever before, and there's no signs of a "natural" end to this resource.
So I guess we should just pretend it's inexhaustible.
Look around, even those who now say the same thing aren't "walking the walk" themselves. I don't know of any liberals who aren't driving gas-guzzling SUVs, and aren't fully self-indulgent in the disposable consumerism.
Let me dispense with that notion. I'm a liberal, I drive a Pontiac Sunfire, and my money goes toward my finances and tuition, not for petty consumer goods. I haven't bought a DVD in over a year. Now you know at least one who doesn't fit your mold.

Addressing your broader point: We're talking about a problem involving six billion people. One individual contributes virtually nothing to the solution by changing his behavior. The only solution lies in collective behavior change, i.e., discussing the issue and lobbying for political attitude change.
Political ideology has virtually nothing to do with this. People are people. People are basically selfish, and creatures of comfort. The energy issue makes some people feel better about themselves... that they are somehow "better people" because... "they care more."
Generally, I agree that people are people on both sides of the spectrum. Given a 50/50 population split, you're likely to find just as many humanitarians, altruists, and wise men on one side of the fence as the other. (Ditto thieves, fanatics, and idealists.)

However, the ideologies differ sharply on one particular point. Conservatives believe in top-down management: strong, authoritative government; lead by example; trickle-down economics. The modus operandi is to fix the top level, have the top level fix the lower level, and on down the line. Liberals place a greater emphasis on individuals - e.g., manage individual rights and obligations, and presume that the system will adapt to accommodate it (and it inevitably does.)

However, the top-down ideology is kind of suspect, because the effect becomes more attenuated the further down the line it goes. Textbook example: trickle-down economics - give money to corporations and wealthy individuals, and assume that it will percolate down to the middle and lower classes. Unsurprisingly, studies show this line of thinking to be a myth.

The result is that more and more resources get allocated to, and remain with, the top or controlling tier. This leads to a "me-first" attitude that pervades the philosophy.

- David Stein

[classicman2]

Or do you only care about what happens in your lifetime?

I damn sure believe that should be our principal concern - the short-term.

If we don't address this problem, the future make look rather bleak.

Ignoring the need for domestic exploration and drilling for oil & natural gas and increasing the use of domestic coal does not address that concern. We should use considerably more nuclear also. However, we won't.

[CRM114]

:lol: classicman's idea of "energy policy" is to drill the hell out of everything we can for the next 20 years and ignore research on alternative fuels. By then, he'll be passed on and it won't matter what us zany liberals think. At least as far as he's concerned.

[classicman2]

I invite you to read some (there have been a bunch of them) of my posts I've made on this subject.

I always start by saying - you can't drill your way out, but you can't conserve your way out either.

I've constantly stated (ask bfrank, the forum's greenie ;) ) that this country should have a comprehensive energy program that involved exploration & drilling, a switch from home heating oil to natural gas, an agressive program for development of alternative fuels, realistic & enforcable conservation programs, doubling the country's SPR, and, yes, nuclear. I'm not opposed to reasonable CAFE standards.

My problem is that the greenies want to ignore addressing the short-term problem - decreasing this country's dependence on foreign oil. That can only be done my exploration & drilling.

Our greenie friends tell us that they're not opposed to exploration & drilling; but, when you ask them where, they respond - 'not there.'

[Red Dog]

Our greenie friends tell us that they're not opposed to exploration & drilling; but, when you ask them where, they respond - 'not there.'


Sounds like NIMBY without the MBY.

[Tracer Bullet]

I invite you to read some (there have been a bunch of them) of my posts I've made on this subject.

I always start by saying - you can't drill your way out, but you can't conserve your way out either.

I've constantly stated (ask bfrank, the forum's greenie ;) ) that this country should have a comprehensive energy program that involved exploration & drilling, a switch from home heating oil to natural gas, an agressive program for development of alternative fuels, realistic & enforcable conservation programs, doubling the country's SPR, and, yes, nuclear. I'm not opposed to reasonable CAFE standards.

My problem is that the greenies want to ignore addressing the short-term problem - decreasing this country's dependence on foreign oil. That can only be done my exploration & drilling.

Our greenie friends tell us that they're not opposed to exploration & drilling; but, when you ask them where, they respond - 'not there.'

Exploration and drilling won't solve anything. It'll just postpone the inevitable for 5 or 10 years.

No administration is going to get serious about the energy crisis until it hits us badly. By then it'll probably be too late to do anything substantive.

[classicman2]

Exploration and drilling won't solve anything. It'll just postpone the inevitable for 5 or 10 years.

No administration is going to get serious about the energy crisis until it hits us badly. By then it'll probably be too late to do anything substantive.

Exploration & drilling is an integral part of any comprehensive energy program.

The problem is not with a reluctant administration - the problem is with the environmentalists who have powerful allies in congress. Unfortunately, most of them are Democrats. We would have a good start of such a program had it not been for them.

It would help if we could get the major oil companies to really contribute their wealth in establishing an energy policy. However, they're only concerned (at the present time) in how cheaply they can buy the oil, regardless of the source. They're really not interested in increasing domestic production, because that might cost them more and cut their profits.

My concern is that there may a crisis in, say the Persian Gulf, and the oil stops flowing. What do we do then?

It's probably already too late to escape the affects of an energy crisis; but, I believe we have time to prevent a catastrophic one.

[movielib]

Oil:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/index.html#c

[bhk]

Exploration and drilling won't solve anything. It'll just postpone the inevitable for 5 or 10 years.
And in the '70s "scientists" were warning us that we were going to run out of oil about 7 years ago.

[mikehunt]

a switch from home heating oil to natural gas,

related story
my friend's mom's house was on a dirt side road that came off the main road I lived on. They had oil for heat and couldn't get National Fuel to hook them up to natural gas. The National Fuel pipe system ran down the main road. A mere 200 yards away, but since they were actually on this minor road they couldn't get it (or cable tv either although it ran down the main road too). Also, their road became a paved road a little bit down from them after it crossed another road that intersected my road. All the people of those paved sections had natural gas. It made no sense for their section of road to not have access

[nemein]

Exploration and drilling won't solve anything. It'll just postpone the inevitable for 5 or 10 years.

No administration is going to get serious about the energy crisis until it hits us badly. By then it'll probably be too late to do anything substantive.


Wasn't that the point he was trying to make though :hscratch: They aren't going to solve anything but they'll give us enough of a buffer zone to work out the alternatives, provided we actually work on them ;)

[movielib]

And in the '70s "scientists" were warning us that we were going to run out of oil about 7 years ago.
They've been predicting it since the first oil well was drilled. The age of oil won't end because of a lack of oil any more than the stone age ended because of a lack of rocks.

The only problems with having an adequate oil supply are and will continue to be political.

[sfsdfd]

The only problems with having an adequate oil supply are and will continue to be political.
That's like playing Russian roulette once - putting the gun to your head, pulling the trigger, and hearing only a click - and assuming that the gun isn't loaded.

- David Stein

[JasonF]

Exploration & drilling is an integral part of any comprehensive energy program.

The problem is not with a reluctant administration - the problem is with the environmentalists who have powerful allies in congress. Unfortunately, most of them are Democrats. We would have a good start of such a program had it not been for them.

You can't blame this all on the environmental lobby. Who is it that has probably had the most impact in limiting drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? Hint: He's a blood relative of the President, and he's not an environmentalist.

I agree with you that we need a comprehensive energy plan that involves extracting more fossil fuels (including but not limited to oil) domestically while at the same time developing new technologies that lessen our dependence on oil. I disagree with you that the President's energy proposals come any closer to this than Senator Kerry's did.

[classicman2]

The most comprehensive energy plan I've seen from government was the Senate Energy Committee's plan under both Chairman Murkowski & Chairman Domenici. Unfortunately both plans were stripped of ANWR exploration & drilling. The house's plan provided for drilling in ANWR. Neither the senate or house plan survived the conference committee due to that dispute and a couple of other problems.

[Tracer Bullet]

And in the '70s "scientists" were warning us that we were going to run out of oil about 7 years ago.

So you're suggesting that their are vast untapped oil reserves in US territory that could sustain our way of life, no changes, indefinitely?

[movielib]

That's like playing Russian roulette once - putting the gun to your head, pulling the trigger, and hearing only a click - and assuming that the gun isn't loaded.

- David Stein
So we are told ad nauseum about every "crisis."

If I pulled the trigger on the gun and heard only a click as many times as the doomsayers have predicted disaster, it might be time to conclude the gun isn't loaded.

[Tracer Bullet]

They've been predicting it since the first oil well was drilled. The age of oil won't end because of a lack of oil any more than the stone age ended because of a lack of rocks.

The only problems with having an adequate oil supply are and will continue to be political.

Even if that were true- and I don't believe it- shouldn't we be working to get off the foreign oil teat? We're basically handing our economy to nations that, if not actually hostile, don't like us very much.

With China and India industrializing, we're either going to have to get serious about energy policy or start wars with every member of OPEC to keep our uninterrupted supply of oil.

[sfsdfd]

So we are told ad nauseum about every "crisis."

If I pulled the trigger on the gun and heard only a click as many times as the doomsayers have predicted disaster, it might be time to conclude the gun isn't loaded.
Well, let's see what we do know:

Oil fields dry up. We tap them completely of oil, and then we can't use them any more.

The rate of new discoveries peaked in 1965, and has plummeted since then, at an increasing rate. (<a href="http://ecen.com/content/eee1/petroleo.htm">source</a>)

Global oil usage is exponentially growing.

Yeah, OK, let's just pretend it's infinite.

- David Stein

[movielib]

Well, let's see what we do know:

Oil fields dry up. We tap them completely of oil, and then we can't use them any more.

The rate of new discoveries peaked in 1965, and has plummeted since then, at an increasing rate. (<a href="http://ecen.com/content/eee1/petroleo.htm">source</a>)

Global oil usage is exponentially growing.

Yeah, OK, let's just pretend it's infinite.

- David Stein
Actually, known reserves are higher now than they were back then (I supplied a source, above - post #81). Then there's shale and tar sands which contain far, far more oil than all the known in-ground oil reserves (yes, it's more expensive but hasn't been developed because our current methods are so cheap; there's no reason to believe innovation will not occur in extracting oil from these sources should it ever become necessary). Then there's the fact that oil exploration and extraction has become ever better and more efficient. Then there's the fact that other, better sources of energy than oil will almost surely be exploitable by that very distant future when we could possibly run out.

[Pharoh]

Well, let's see what we do know:

Oil fields dry up. We tap them completely of oil, and then we can't use them any more.

The rate of new discoveries peaked in 1965, and has plummeted since then, at an increasing rate. (<a href="http://ecen.com/content/eee1/petroleo.htm">source</a>)

Global oil usage is exponentially growing.

Yeah, OK, let's just pretend it's infinite.

- David Stein


I don't believe he stated the supply was infinite, unless I missed it?

It must also be noted that the issue of oil discoveries is not simply a geological one, but an increasingly political, economic, and technical one. The study you linked does not factor that in, nor does it factor in shale and tar sands, as movielib already pointed out.

I don't think we should completely ignore the issue, but I am not all that worried about any impending oil shortage either.

[classicman2]

There won't be anyone on this forum alive when we run out of oil.

That's not the problem.

The problem is a curtailment in the free flow of oil. 57-60% of our oil needs is imported.

[Red Dog]

A: A (real, not political) impending oil shortage and global warming.


Q: What are 2 things Red Dog isn't all that worried about.

;)

[Ralph Wiggum]

We'll never run out of oil because the alternatives will be far cheaper before that even comes close to happening.

[bhk]

So you're suggesting that their are vast untapped oil reserves in US territory that could sustain our way of life, no changes, indefinitely?
Show me where I suggest that. Saying we are going to run out of oil in 5 years to 10 years indicates a lack of knowledge about the oil industry. Estimates made 30 years ago were predicting that we would be out of oil about 5 years ago and that we needed to conserve.

Of course when alternatives are proposed libs like Ted Kennedy(D-Chivas) don't want alternative sources of energy if they happen to spoil the view out of their mansions.

[Tracer Bullet]

Show me where I suggest that. Saying we are going to run out of oil in 5 years to 10 years indicates a lack of knowledge about the oil industry. Estimates made 30 years ago were predicting that we would be out of oil about 5 years ago and that we needed to conserve.

Of course when alternatives are proposed libs like Ted Kennedy(D-Chivas) don't want alternative sources of energy if they happen to spoil the view out of their mansions.

Show me where I said we'd run out of oil in 5-10 years. I suggested that ramped up exploration and drilling might buy the US 5-10 years free of oil dependency.

[classicman2]

Show me where I said we'd run out of oil in 5-10 years. I suggested that ramped up exploration and drilling might buy the US 5-10 years free of oil dependency.

Are you saying that by increasing domestic production we can stop importing oil?

We import nearly 60% of our petroleum needs. There is no way that we can increase domestic production to be make up that.

We're going to be dependent upon oil imports for the foreseeable future.

[bhk]

Originally Posted by TracerBullet
Exploration and drilling won't solve anything. It'll just postpone the inevitable for 5 or 10 years.
You don't come out and say it but you imply that new drilling will only add 5-10 years to the oil supply we have now. My original response to your post was that since we had "scientists" predict 30 years ago that we would be out of oil 5 years ago that it is impossible to say how much oil the world has left. And it is also wrong to assume more drilling will add only 5-10 years to that supply.

[Tracer Bullet]

Are you saying that by increasing domestic production we can stop importing oil?

We import nearly 60% of our petroleum needs. There is no way that we can increase domestic production to be make up that.

We're going to be dependent upon oil imports for the foreseeable future.

My supposition is purely hypothetical. For example, the vaunted Alaskan Wildlife Preserve is said to have enough oil to meet current US demands for 1-2 years. Then of course, we'd have to import 100% of our oil.

[Tracer Bullet]

You don't come out and say it but you imply that new drilling will only add 5-10 years to the oil supply we have now. My original response to your post was that since we had "scientists" predict 30 years ago that we would be out of oil 5 years ago that it is impossible to say how much oil the world has left. And it is also wrong to assume more drilling will add only 5-10 years to that supply.

You misunderstood me or I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean to imply that I thought the entire world's oil supply would be exhausted in 5-10 years. That's simply ridiculous.

What I meant was, if we significantly ramped up oil exploration and drilling in the US, we might buy ourselves 5-10 years free of the need to import oil.

[bhk]

You misunderstood me or I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean to imply that I thought the entire world's oil supply would be exhausted in 5-10 years. That's simply ridiculous.
What I meant was, if we significantly ramped up oil exploration and drilling in the US, we might buy ourselves 5-10 years free of the need to import oil.
I understood exactly what you said. It is still incorrect. No one has been accurately able to estimate how long the oil is going to last. What makes you think that drilling will only add 5-10 years when even people who make their living predicting this sort of thing have been ridiculously inaccurate?

[movielib]

More of interest on oil:

http://www.detnews.com/2002/editorial/0205/29/a11-500860.htm

Supplies of oil may be inexhaustible

By Bruce Bartlett

On April 16, Newsday, the Long Island newspaper, published a startling report that old oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico were somehow being refilled. That is, new oil was being discovered in fields where it previously had not existed.

Scientists, led by Mahlon Kennicutt of Texas A&M University, speculate that the new oil is surging upward from deposits well below those currently in production. "Very light oil and gas were being injected from below, even as the producing was going on," he said.

Although it is not yet known whether this is a worldwide phenomenon or commercially important, the new discovery suggests that there may be far more oil and gas within the Earth's core than previously thought.

Kennicutt is not the first to suggest that vast hydrocarbon deposits may lie well below those currently known. In 1995, the New York Times reported that geochemist Jean Whelan of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts had also found evidence that oil was moving upward into reservoirs from somewhere far deeper.

With growing improvements in technology that are making possible oil drilling at greater and greater depths, it may soon be economically feasible to explore and produce oil from these deep deposits.

The existence of oil much farther below the surface than it was previously thought to exist raises new questions about the origins of oil and natural gas. It has commonly been thought that they are the decayed remains of long dead plants and animals. However, as hydrocarbons are found at extreme depths, this explanation becomes increasingly implausible.

Astronomer Thomas Gold of Cornell University has long been dissatisfied with the dead dinosaur theory of oil's origins. He argues that oil and gas are in fact the remains of methane left over from the Earth's origin. Methane, he points out, is one of the most common minerals in the universe. When the stars and planets were formed eons ago, it was one of the central building blocks from which matter formed.

If Gold's theory is true, then it makes sense that we would continue to find hydrocarbons everywhere within the Earth's core, and not just at the surface, where plants and animals exist. Thus the new research is at least consistent with Gold's theory, even if it remains to be proven.

The new scientific evidence that energy supplies may be vastly greater than previously imagined is only the latest blow to the doomsayers. Such people have been around for 200 years, preaching that mankind has reached the limit to growth because we have found all the oil there is to be found. For at least a century, for example, the U.S. Geological Survey has consistently reported that America had only about 10 years worth of oil left.

In defense of the Geological Survey, it was referring only to proven reserves. These are fields that have been explored, and where estimates have been made regarding their size and production potential. But of course, exploration is a continuing process, so new reserves are discovered all the time.

Economist Julian Simon long made the point that the size of proven reserves cannot be divorced from the price of oil. At current price levels, only about 40 percent of oil can be extracted from existing fields; the remaining 60 percent, which is known to exist, cannot be produced economically and is therefore not included in proven reserve estimates. However, higher prices and advanced technology can easily make it profitable to expand production in existing fields.

Higher prices also encourage exploration into areas that geologists strongly suspect to have oil, but where drilling costs are too high at present. Only a small portion of the Earth's surface has ever been explored for oil, and there is no reason to believe that there are not many large deposits yet to be discovered.

If oil were really becoming more scarce, we would expect to see prices rising over time. In fact, the real price of oil, adjusted for inflation, has been remarkably stable at around $15 per barrel. Temporary price spikes by OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) have not proved sustainable because they brought forth new supplies, encouraged substitution of oil with coal or gas, and stimulated conservation by consumers and businesses.

In short, even if the new scientific evidence about oil is wrong, one can still say the world will never run out of it. Higher prices will always bring new supplies to market. As Bjorn Lomberg points out in his new book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press), $40 per barrel oil will immediately increase world reserves from a 40 years supply to 250 years because vast known oil shale deposits will become economically viable.

Of all the things we have to worry about in this day and age, running out of oil should not be one of them.

[Tracer Bullet]

I understood exactly what you said. It is still incorrect. No one has been accurately able to estimate how long the oil is going to last. What makes you think that drilling will only add 5-10 years when even people who make their living predicting this sort of thing have been ridiculously inaccurate?

So we're back to where we started, then. You seem to be supposing that there is the potential for vast untapped oil reserves in US territory that we just haven't found yet.

[classicman2]

So we're back to where we started, then. You seem to be supposing that there is the potential for vast untapped oil reserves in US territory that we just haven't found yet.

Estimates on ANWR run from the equivalent of Texas production to 4-5 times Texas production.

Deep water Gulf of Mexico - problem - very, very expensive (75-100 million dollars)

Eastern Gulf also

[PopcornTreeCt]

Here are some things I've learned from this thread:

1. Both parties have very distorted beliefs and views on the what the opposite party truly stands for.

2. Ignore everything Julie Walker has to say about politics.

[sracer]

So I guess we should just pretend it's inexhaustible.
No.(Even though it MIGHT be inexhaustible... we REALLY don't know) But we shouldn't go all "Henny Penny" and start leaving our gas-powered cars at home and go back to horse-n-buggy this coming Monday morning. We should at least be honest about the fact that we really DON'T know how much is left. By making a prediction that is proven false, you weaken the credibility of future preditions.

Let me dispense with that notion. I'm a liberal, I drive a Pontiac Sunfire, and my money goes toward my finances and tuition, not for petty consumer goods. I haven't bought a DVD in over a year. Now you know at least one who doesn't fit your mold.
I knew there was a reason why I liked engaging in discussions with you! You have integrity!

Addressing your broader point: We're talking about a problem involving six billion people. One individual contributes virtually nothing to the solution by changing his behavior. The only solution lies in collective behavior change, i.e., discussing the issue and lobbying for political attitude change.
I agree. But unfortunately there are too many special interest groups (like the auto industry, oil, auto repair, etc.) who want the status quo to continue to prevent any meaningful changes from happening. Congress passes laws with loopholes large enough for a stretch Hummer to literally drive through. And this is done deliberately.

I'm still puzzled as to how, in this day and age, behemoths like the Hummer, Navigator, Expedition, Escalade, etc. are permitted to be produced.
-confused-

[classicman2]

I'm still puzzled as to how, in this day and age, behemoths like the Hummer, Navigator, Expedition, Escalade, etc. are permitted to be produced.

And I'm shocked to hear anyone who advocates that the government should have control over the type of automobile produced by private manufacturers for private consumers.

[DarkestPhoenix]

2. Ignore everything Julie Walker has to say about politics.

:thumbsup:

Unless you want to hear rhetoric on par with the Nazis for inaccuracies.

;)