[XOVERX]

Whoa, gego, hold on there. Classic western liberalism is founded upon 2 bedrock principles, which were enunciated in the 17th century by John Locke and others. These principles are:

1. Belief that the individual has certain inalienable rights, regardless of the desires of the sovereign or of the majority. Among these rights include life, liberty, and

2. Property. That is, the right of the individual to own private property.

America was founded upon the bedrock of classic liberalism, which is why the rest of the world oftentimes refers to America as a "western liberal democracy." Hell, I've even heard George Bush say the US wants to establish a "liberal democracy" in Iraq.

The Democratic Party embraces the philosophy of classic western liberalism, but has incorporated an additional American spin -- the Jeffersonian additions of "the pursuit of happiness" and "providing for the common welfare." While neither of these Jeffersonian ideas appear in the US Constitution, and thus are not the law of the land, they are, nonetheless, American additions to classic western liberal democracy.

It is not, therefore, any great surprise that most US liberals are Democrats who:

1. Vehemently oppose legislation like the Patriot Act since it infringes upon individual rights appearing in the Bill of Rights;

2. Ardently support the rights of private citizens to the ownership of private property, yet remain suspicious of latter day corporations being given more rights than individual citizens;

3. Support base-net social legislation like social security (which the individual pays for, by the way), medical care for all at no cost to the individual (like every other industrialized nation in the world), and the elimination of hunger for America's children (welfare). These base legislations "provide for the common welfare" in the world-view of a liberal, and will always therefore find support in the mind of a liberal.

While it is true that the "common welfare" packages that liberals support necessitate a governmental entity for implementation, liberals do not otherwise have one whole helluva lot of trust over a centralized government. Distrust of central government was exactly the reason the liberals insisted on a "Bill of Rights" to be included in the Constitution in the first place -- to insure that central government could not remove certain rights of the individual.

My Republican friends have done an outstanding job in making the word "liberal" into a political liability. But the truth of the matter is that it is the Republicans who love to chip away the rights of the individual for the paternalism of the government (the Patriot Act / spying on Americans without warrants), who love big government's ability to print money (borrow and spend / abuse the national debt), who love getting into the individual's bedroom (constitutional marriage amendment), who love telling the individual when he can die (Terri Schaivo), who are aligned with the American mullahs (Falwell / Robertson / Dobson) who would replace the Constitution with "Biblical Law", and now, who love using big government to wage preemptive wars around the world.

There is not one Republican administration in the last 100 years that has decreased the size of the federal government or balanced the budget, and yet, they have managed to convince the voters (through supurb management of the television and radio media), that less government and less spending is what they stand for. Republicans are truly gifted in the manipulation of thoughts and ideas. And that is exactly why they will hold onto the reigns of power for several more years.

The basic difference between liberals and libertarians is that liberals believe that government is a necessary entity and has a significant role in governance, if only due to the size of the nation, while most libertarians would like to make government virtually disappear, with very limited exceptions, such as the military. For example, a liberal has no problem with government passing a 55 mph law to save oil for the "common welfare," while a libertarian would oppose such a law for numerous reasons, most having to do with unreasonable governmental interference in the rights of the individual to do whatever he wants if he is not hurting another individual.

Essentially, libertarians are -- like it or not -- "classic western liberals" in the philosophic sense, while US style political liberals add in the Jeffersonian components to classic liberalism, "providing for the common welfare" and the "pursuit of happiness."

While I understand that you will likely elect to continue to embrace the Republican version of a "liberal," as minds do not change easily, you have now been exposed to the historical roots and underpinnings of the subject. Continue muddled in the dark or enlighten yourself, the choice is yours.

[dub_scratch]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', '
')So as to the poster to whom I am responding, kiss my freedom loving ass. As to the Republicans you condem, fuck them. As to the Cornucopians that you put down, they are wishful thinkers, not wanting to face the overpopulation/scarec energy dilemma. As to you, and your Liberal fellow ass holes, go get some self esteem and quit pretending that you can feel better about yourself by standing on some imagined inferior's back.

[dub_scratch]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '
')
SCI: Gobdamn, but you are such a moron.

(car tires begin rapid thumpety-thump as they go over planks)

LIB: I love you, Mr Socky.

SOCK: Ditto!

[mrobert]

Recently, I visited a friend.
While having a chat, I remembered that he finished college in the area of geology.

I discreetely mentioned : Have you seen the latest gas prices? It looks like we are starting to run out of the good stuff.

His answer was reassuring :
Remember Rob, I graduated geology and learn 'a bit' on these things Do you think we live on infinite ammounts of oil, gas, etc?
We still have some, but it won't last our lifetime.

It was the best objective answer I ever got around PeakOil, from a person who doesn't bother with it.

And BEWARE of phrases such as :

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')LIB: I am confident that our innovative and technologically sophisticated economy will come up with a solution before we impact any hypothetical lake. Right, Mr Socky?
SOCK: 's alright!

[Sleepybag]

I would like to point the readers to the fact that the discussed article in the Dallas Morning Star is only one side of the story. The other side is a similar article, in the same paper, where another author (westexas) claims the opposite. Giving voice to both sides, the readers can decide which one to believe. It seems the newspaper wanted to start a discussion amonst it's readers, and not convince them that oil was abundent for the next three decades.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dallas Morning Star', 'I')n 1972, Texas was king of the oil world. We had increased our oil production by 40 percent during the previous 10 years at relatively low prices. Texas producers were poised for surging production as oil prices exploded and rose tenfold by 1980. The state underwent its biggest drilling boom in history. The number of producing wells jumped 14 percent by 1982. The industry consensus was that oil production would increase dramatically. To general astonishment, it fell instead, despite dramatically higher prices, frantic drilling and improving technology. By 1982, production had dropped to almost exactly what it had been in 1962.
Click here to read more

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sleepybag', 'I') would like to point the readers to the fact that the discussed article in the Dallas Morning Star is only one side of the story...Dallas Morning News: Has Oil Peaked: Yes