This forum is pathetic?

[Bruce]

We recently lost Ex Lion Tamer because the politics forum is supposedly overrun by "neocon ditto-heads" and "morons".

I've always had the impression that the politics forum is dominated by lefties and liberitarians. Let's figure this out once and for all with a totally non-scientific poll!

Hey, you want science, you go to the science forum. You want humor, you stay right here. ;)

[Zep]

Yes, I do believe this forum has occasionally descended into pathos. Towards each other, it is em-pathy. All together, it is called sym-pathy.

Sorry, pathetic attempt at humour...

[Cleon]

Foul! Foul, I say!

First - I am definitely under "None of the Above." I am a leftist, but not a liberal. Certainly not a Democrat.

Second - many of our forum regulars are not American. Non-USAnians have completely different ideas of what "liberal," "conservative," etc. mean.

Therefore, your completely non-scientific poll isn't even close to being an accurate non-scientific poll.

So, foul!

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Cleon

Therefore, your completely non-scientific poll isn't even close to being an accurate non-scientific poll.


WudItellya?

You want humor, you stay right here! :D

For those of you who are Europeans:

You want humour, you stay right here, wanker! ;)

[Marquis de Carabas]

My political beliefs tend more towards Mischievous Feline Despotism.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Bruce
I've always had the impression that the politics forum is dominated by lefties and liberitarians. Let's figure this out once and for all with a totally non-scientific poll! All the decent people round here are totally oppressed by evil fascists like you. And Brucetta.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Whereas good fascists, like myself, only go in for 90% oppression.

[Zep]

Oh I dunno...

Maybe 85%??


OK, 80% tops.

[Bruce]

Where are all the evil neocons??

Oops, I just realised I forgot to include a "moron" option. Sorry about that. :D

[BPSCG]

You left out "right-wing-fascist-kneejerk-Bush-supporting-war-criminal-oppressor-of-the-poor-and-working-class-moron."

So I put down "neocon."

[Kodiak]

Hawkish Atheist Conservative/Libertarian here...

Does that make me a 'neocon'?

[a_unique_person]

Where's the "libertine" option.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Hawkish Atheist Conservative/Libertarian here...

Does that make me a 'neocon'?

No that makes you a liberal.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Darat
No that makes you a liberal.

I can't tell if your serious.

Since you're British, could you either twist your mustache, or give me a 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink'? :p

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Where's the "libertine" option.

Feeking dissolute again, a_u_p? ;)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I can't tell if your serious.

Since you're British, could you either twist your mustache, or give me a 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink'? :p

Both of course, on the one hand I know how much you would love to be labelled "liberal" but on the other hand I think it is a shame the USA really has forgotten what "liberal" means in the sense of politics.

You could make a very strong argument that the most of the "Founding Fathers" were liberals and that the USA is the product of liberal principles and policies.

I think it would do your country good if, perhaps just before the religious ceremony, in your schools they children were instructed to chant 20 times every morning "Liberal does not mean left wing."

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Darat
Both of course, on the one hand I know how much you would love to be labelled "liberal" but on the other hand I think it is a shame the USA really has forgotten what "liberal" means in the sense of politics.

You could make a very strong argument that the most of the "Founding Fathers" were liberals and that the USA is the product of liberal principles and policies.

I think it would do your country good if, perhaps just before the religious ceremony, in your schools they children were instructed to chant 20 times every morning "Liberal does not mean left wing."

A good point not made often enough. Many conservative/libertarians also use the term "Jeffersonian liberal". The terms liberal and conservative must take into account the political climate at the time.

That said of course, nowadays in the US, liberal indeed does mean left wing... :)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Kodiak

That said of course, nowadays in the US, liberal indeed does mean left wing... :)

No, it doesn't. I'm left-wing, I'm not a liberal.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Cleon
No, it doesn't. I'm left-wing, I'm not a liberal.

A USA citizen is left wing? Right! :D ;)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by BPSCG
You left out "right-wing-fascist-kneejerk-Bush-supporting-war-criminal-oppressor-of-the-poor-and-working-class-moron."

So I put down "neocon."

I don't think we need to get that specific, at least not until Ion gets out of the psych ward.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Cleon
No, it doesn't. I'm left-wing, I'm not a liberal.

Could you explain the difference? I'm confused as well.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Hawkish Atheist Conservative/Libertarian here...

Does that make me a 'neocon'? Actually, yes. The original Neocons were mostly socially liberal secular Jews who had a relatively hawkish view America's role in the world and who became disenchanted with what they perceived to be an increasing hostility in the Democratic party to an activist foreign policy and in particular to the military. They came to believe that the Republican party, which they believed at least had a constructive view of national defense and a more trusting and, frankly, patriotic feeling toward the military, was a much more likely place for their views to receive a fair hearing.

You know the saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged? An original neo-con is a liberal whose anticommunism was mugged.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleon
No, it doesn't. I'm left-wing, I'm not a liberal.

That's not saying the same thing. It's a 'subset' thingee...

All modern liberals in the US are left-wing, but not all modern left-wingers in the US are liberal.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jocko
Could you explain the difference? I'm confused as well.

Good starting article can be found here:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#Pol


...snip...

‘By definition’, Maurice Cranston rightly pointed out .... , ‘a liberal is a man who believes in liberty’ . In two different ways, liberals accord liberty primacy as a political value. First, liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in ‘a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man’ .... Mill too argued that ‘[T]he burden of proof is supposed to ith those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…’..... This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle ....: freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would limit freedom.

...snip...


The only meaningful way liberalism can be considered "left wing" is that it is in opposition to "right wing" policies which have traditionally been held as "Conservative" policies, if you consider a spectrum of fascism (extreme right wing) to communism (extreme left wing) then liberalism is in the middle! ;)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Kodiak
That's not saying the same thing. It's a 'subset' thingee...

All modern liberals in the US are left-wing, but not all modern left-wingers in the US are liberal.

Depends on what the meaning off "is" is. :D

Sorry, cheap shot. I, for one, would like to know Cleon's distinctions between the two terms.

[varwoche]

It's probably safe to say that members familiar with my posts would consider me liberal and I have no objection, though I can point to a number of conservative positions I have taken on this forum.

I don't know what these words mean, and see little value in self-categorization regardless.

[bjornart]

I'm in de pendant.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Kodiak
That's not saying the same thing. It's a 'subset' thingee...

All modern liberals in the US are left-wing, but not all modern left-wingers in the US are liberal.

And from this distance we find this useful to distinguish between your "right" and "left" wings!

http://www.darat.org/JREFPhotos/gapper.jpg

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Jocko
Could you explain the difference? I'm confused as well.

For starters:

a) Liberals are anti-gun. I am not.
b) Liberals are vehemently pro-Israel. I am not.
c) Liberals are pro-drug war. I am not.
d) Liberals are pro-Democratic Party. I am not.
e) Liberals, like John Kerry, are pro-war. I am not.
f) Liberals, like John Kerry, are pro-Patriot Act. I am not.


Those are some of the differences when it comes to positions. In essence, I'm to the left of liberals.

Edited to add: And, unlike Liberals, I'm fully well aware that Clinton is/was a corrupt, mysogynistic douchebag.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Darat
The only meaningful way liberalism can be considered "left wing" is that it is in opposition to "right wing" policies which have traditionally been held as "Conservative" policies, if you consider a spectrum of fascism (extreme right wing) to communism (extreme left wing) then liberalism is in the middle! ;)

Sorry, but that is no where near confusing enough..

http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.jpg


As a conservative/libertarian, is it plain for all to see that it is I...that I am the one who is...that it would be myself who is...


What were we talking about?

[Nucular]

As a disaffected English socialist more used to moaning about the lack of proportional representation than actually putting together a coherent political argument, I hereby fail to vote.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Darat
The only meaningful way liberalism can be considered "left wing" is that it is in opposition to "right wing" policies which have traditionally been held as "Conservative" policies, if you consider a spectrum of fascism (extreme right wing) to communism (extreme left wing) then liberalism is in the middle! ;) ...right along with conservatism.

I've never liked the term "liberal" to describe the left, because as you point out, that was not the original meaning of the word; it has simply been co-opted by the left. I suppose the intent was to grab the moral high ground - after all, in a democracy, who could be against "liberalism", the idea that the purpose of government is to protect human rights? Then, as basic human rights more and more became something people just took as a given, the original meaning of the word was forgotten, leaving the left in sole possession.

I find that when I occasionally use the term "liberal democracy," I have to be careful to explain that I don't mean a left-wing democracy. Sweden and the U.S., as different as they are, are both liberal; Cuba, as far left as it is, is not liberal.

IIRC, Lenin did something similar in naming his political party the Bolsheviks, which is derived from the Russian word for "majority." And his opposition allowed themselves to be called the mensheviks, or minority, probably one of the stupidest political blunders of all time.

Note: No, I'm not comparing today's "liberals" with Lenin, though today's leftists often love to tar the right with the term "fascist", to the point that that word, too, has lost its original meaning, and now means "anyone on the right that the left really hates."

[Cleon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
...right along with conservatism.

I've never liked the term "liberal" to describe the left, because as you point out, that was not the original meaning of the word; it has simply been co-opted by the left.

Except for the fact that it's usually the right using the word to disparage anyone remotely left-of-center (and even those who aren't, like Kerry), yiou have a point.


IIRC, Lenin did something similar in naming his political party the Bolsheviks, which is derived from the Russian word for "majority." And his opposition allowed themselves to be called the mensheviks, or minority, probably one of the stupidest political blunders of all time.


The Bolsheviki and the Mensheviki were not separate parties, actually; they got their names from their respective sizes within the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (talk about naming blunders). Lenin's wing, the Bolsheviki, were the majority tendency in the Party, and the Mensheviki were the minority. Hence the names. It makes sense in context.


Note: No, I'm not comparing today's "liberals" with Lenin, though today's leftists often love to tar the right with the term "fascist", to the point that that word, too, has lost its original meaning, and now means "anyone on the right that the left really hates."

Odd. I hear the word "socialist" lobbed at the Democratic Party rather often, but while I hear grumblings about similarities to 1930s Germany, I don't often hear Republicans called fascists just for being Republicans.

[Bruce]

There you have it.

8% Neocon
32% Liberal

Ex Lion Tamer was driven away by a tiny minority. He is officially a wiener.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Bruce
Ex Lion Tamer was driven away by a tiny minority. He is officially a wiener. And we all know how accurate polls made up of self-selected samples are.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by BPSCG
And we all know how accurate polls made up of self-selected samples are.

Hey, you were given choices and an opportunity to vote. Are you attacking Democracy? Are you speaking out against your right to CHOOSE? I was handed a ballot with a list of candidates last year. I made a choice and you didn't hear me complain.









Ok, you heard me complain a LOT, but it's still better than communism. :p

[Darat]

Originally posted by BPSCG
And we all know how accurate polls made up of self-selected samples are.


The figure normally given is that they are 64% accurate (+/- 3%).

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Darat
The figure normally given is that they are 64% accurate (+/- 3%).

, and the other 36% are just WRONG.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Darat
The figure normally given is that they are 64% accurate (+/- 3%).

Ah, but that's leaving out the fact that 46.7% of all statistics are made up.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Bruce
We recently lost Ex Lion Tamer because the politics forum is supposedly overrun by "neocon ditto-heads" and "morons".

I've always had the impression that the politics forum is dominated by lefties and liberitarians. Let's figure this out once and for all with a totally non-scientific poll!

Hey, you want science, you go to the science forum. You want humor, you stay right here. ;)
The few neocons that there are on this forum are especially prolific; Ex Lion Tamer was probably thrown off by that. If you look at just about every political poll taken on this forum, however—and since participating in a poll is much quicker than posting up a new message and you don't get that skew that pervades much of the conversation on this board—the liberal view tends to be favored.
Originally posted by Cleon
For starters:

a) Liberals are anti-gun. I am not.
b) Liberals are vehemently pro-Israel. I am not.
c) Liberals are pro-drug war. I am not.
d) Liberals are pro-Democratic Party. I am not.
e) Liberals, like John Kerry, are pro-war. I am not.
f) Liberals, like John Kerry, are pro-Patriot Act. I am not.
If you're looking to John Kerry as a quintessential foot soldier for liberalism, you're just buying into Republican spin. He's actually probably a bit right of center, but compared to all of the far-right ideologues who dominate a great portion of the government right now, he seems like he's to the left.

And even though he originally supported the Patriot Act, you do have to give him at least some credit for coming to his senses later on. His allegiance to it was very tenuous.

Isn't it the conservative ideology that's usually associated with the "War on Drugs"?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
My political beliefs tend more towards Mischievous Feline Despotism.

Good to see you know which side of your bread is buttered.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.

If you're looking to John Kerry as a quintessential foot soldier for liberalism, you're just buying into Republican spin. He's actually probably a bit right of center, but compared to all of the far-right ideologues who dominate a great portion of the government right now, he seems like he's to the left.


Normally, I wouldn't disagree, but given the amount of energy the liberals threw into his campaign (and this was before he got the nomination--because he was perceived as "electable"), he apparently at some point became the Great Liberal Hero.


And even though he originally supported the Patriot Act, you do have to give him at least some credit for coming to his senses later on. His allegiance to it was very tenuous.


His wishy-washiness on what should be a fairly cut-and-dry issue does not speak well for him.


Isn't it the conservative ideology that's usually associated with the "War on Drugs"?

Tell that to Clinton, the liberals' wet dream. In fact, find me a liberal politician who's opposed to it. At this point, I think you can actually find more conservatives who realize what a cluster%^&* it is than liberals.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Bruce
There you have it.

8% Neocon
32% Liberal

Ex Lion Tamer was driven away by a tiny minority. He is officially a wiener.

Oh, I suspect he'll be back one of these days. Remember Zenith-Nadir throwing a major-league hissy-fit a few months ago and leaving forever? Well, He's back, so I wouldn't be surprised if ELT doesn't keep browsing the boards and find a thread HE CAN'T RESIST....and much like me and Potato Chips, he'll find he can't stop at one.

Me? I'm a Militant Agnostic Centrist.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Hutch

Me? I'm a Militant Agnostic Centrist.

Whatever you say, Mac. :p

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Hutch
Oh, I suspect he'll be back one of these days.

Yes, I know. I suspect he will expect a reaction to his indignant tirade.

I didn't want to disappoint him. :D

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
His allegiance to it was very tenuous.


I don't think that observation is necessarily limited to the Patirot Act.

[Grammatron]

Well I like pie.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleon
Normally, I wouldn't disagree, but given the amount of energy the liberals threw into his campaign (and this was before he got the nomination--because he was perceived as "electable"), he apparently at some point became the Great Liberal Hero.

Just wait until 2008, when you'll have Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton to choose from... :p

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Well I like pie.

What kind of pie? You better not be one of those pecan-pie-liking liberals! Every true American knows apple pie is the best. ;)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Just wait until 2008, when you'll have Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton to choose from... :p

Which is why I will continue my track record of voting Green. :)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
What kind of pie? You better not be one of those pecan-pie-liking liberals! Every true American knows apple pie is the best. ;)

HEY! Them's fightin' words down here in the red-stated South.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon
HEY! Them's fightin' words down here in the red-stated South.

Yes and we all remember how well you fight :p

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Every true American knows apple pie is the best. ;)

You're not talking about Dutch apple pie, are you? Every warm-blooded American likes his apple pie hot.

Damn flaccid liberal Dutch....

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleon
Which is why I will continue my track record of voting Green. :)

So you're saying a wasted vote on principle is better than a vote for an electable lesser of two evils? ;)

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Kodiak
So you're saying a wasted vote on principle is better than a vote for an electable lesser of two evils? ;)

It's only wasted if you vote for someone you don't want.

so...Yes. :)

(Of course, I disagree that it's the "lesser of two evils"--that implies either one is "lesser.")

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleon
It's only wasted if you vote for someone you don't want.

so...Yes. :)

(Of course, I disagree that it's the "lesser of two evils"--that implies either one is "lesser.")

You don't consider voting for a candidate that will probably garner less than 5% a wasted vote?

I do, which is why I won't vote Libertarian in national elections. Someone might be able to change my mind, but I've yet to hear a compelling argument that could cause me to do so.




Oh, and the GOP would like to thank you... ;)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
If you're looking to John Kerry as a quintessential foot soldier for liberalism, you're just buying into Republican spin. He's actually probably a bit right of center, but compared to all of the far-right ideologues who dominate a great portion of the government right now, he seems like he's to the left. Your mini-rant got me wondering about that, so I decided to find out just how liberal Kerry supposedly is. Turns out his 2004 ADA rating was 25%, compared to his Massachusetts compatriot's 100%, 95% for Hillary, 100% for Chuck Schumer. Frankly, I was surprised.

Then I went down the list to see how much the "far-right idealogues" dominate congress. This link (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php? sig_id=003455M) has the ADA ratings for 488 of the 535 reps and senators (I don't know who's missing). A congress infested with nothing but commies would skew towards a 100% ADA rating, whereas a pure patriotic-American conservative congress would skew towards 0%.

I totalled up all the ADA scores and divided by 488 (thank you, Excel) and came up with an average ADA score of 48.20, or a slightly right-of-center score that tracks remarkably close to the Bush/Kerry popular vote percentages.

Since the GOP has 55% of the senate and 53% of the House, you'd think the average ADA score would be lower, in the 45% to 47% range. Does this mean that the Republicans are less conservative than perceived? Or are the Democrats more liberal?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Kodiak
You don't consider voting for a candidate that will probably garner less than 5% a wasted vote?

As I said, I only consider it a wasted vote if I vote for someone I don't want.

My voting for Democrats as somehow being "lesser of two evils" means that, in the 2004 election, I'd be voting for a pro-war, anti-gun rights, wishy-washy chump. Your insistance on voting Republican means that you wind up voting for religious nutcases who want to run this country based on their vision of what Jebus wants.

No, I won't go down that road. I didn't want Kerry. And I certainly didn't want Bush. Nader came closest to what I wanted, so I voted for him.

If you're just voting for one schmuck or another based on "winnability" rather than the principles you actually want, then there's no point in voting at all. Let the whole thing be one giant crap shoot--after all, you wind up with crap anyway.

True, my vote is a small gesture, but I won't buy into the "lesser of two evils" crap.

[Ed]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Your mini-rant got me wondering about that, so I decided to find out just how liberal Kerry supposedly is. Turns out his 2004 ADA rating was 25%, compared to his Massachusetts compatriot's 100%, 95% for Hillary, 100% for Chuck Schumer. Frankly, I was surprised.

Then I went down the list to see how much the "far-right idealogues" dominate congress. This link (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php? sig_id=003455M) has the ADA ratings for 488 of the 535 reps and senators (I don't know who's missing). A congress infested with nothing but commies would skew towards a 100% ADA rating, whereas a pure patriotic-American conservative congress would skew towards 0%.

I totalled up all the ADA scores and divided by 488 (thank you, Excel) and came up with an average ADA score of 48.20, or a slightly right-of-center score that tracks remarkably close to the Bush/Kerry popular vote percentages.

Since the GOP has 55% of the senate and 53% of the House, you'd think the average ADA score would be lower, in the 45% to 47% range. Does this mean that the Republicans are less conservative than perceived? Or are the Democrats more liberal?

can you shoot me the data? I'd like to tumble it a bit.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleon
As I said, I only consider it a wasted vote if I vote for someone I don't want.

My voting for Democrats as somehow being "lesser of two evils" means that, in the 2004 election, I'd be voting for a pro-war, anti-gun rights, wishy-washy chump. Your insistance on voting Republican means that you wind up voting for religious nutcases who want to run this country based on their vision of what Jebus wants.

No, I won't go down that road. I didn't want Kerry. And I certainly didn't want Bush. Nader came closest to what I wanted, so I voted for him.

If you're just voting for one schmuck or another based on "winnability" rather than the principles you actually want, then there's no point in voting at all. Let the whole thing be one giant crap shoot--after all, you wind up with crap anyway.

True, my vote is a small gesture, but I won't buy into the "lesser of two evils" crap.

But in the real world, you have to admit that a vote for Nader is the same as a vote for the GOP, just as a vote for Buchanan would be a vote for the democratic candidate?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Kodiak
But in the real world, you have to admit that a vote for Nader is the same as a vote for the GOP, just as a vote for Buchanan would be a vote for the democratic candidate?

Hardly. A vote for the GOP is a vote for the GOP. A vote for the Democrats is a vote for the Democrats. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. A vote for Buchanan is just silly. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I didn't vote for Bush, just as I didn't vote for Kerry. I voted for Nader. Saying my vote was a de facto vote for Bush because I didn't vote Kerry makes no more sense than saying it was a de facto vote for Kerry because I didn't vote for Bush.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Cleon
Normally, I wouldn't disagree, but given the amount of energy the liberals threw into his campaign (and this was before he got the nomination--because he was perceived as "electable"), he apparently at some point became the Great Liberal Hero.
He was really all we had to dispute Bush's candidacy in the race to claim the seat behind the desk in the Oval Office.
Originally posted by Cleon
His wishy-washiness on what should be a fairly cut-and-dry issue does not speak well for him.
You're right. It was nothing for him to be proud of. All I'm saying is that he wasn't quite as bad as you made him out to be. In the end, he recanted this disturbing view.
Originally posted by Cleon
Tell that to Clinton, the liberals' wet dream. In fact, find me a liberal politician who's opposed to it.
Clinton wasn't really all that liberal either. Ralph Nader, who is one of the few people on the political radar now that can be accurately portrayed as a liberal, is one of the anti-drug camp's most vociferous detractors.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Bruce
You're not talking about Dutch apple pie, are you? Every warm-blooded American likes his apple pie hot.

Dutch apple pie is acceptable only if you call in Freedom Apple Pie. :D

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Since the GOP has 55% of the senate and 53% of the House, you'd think the average ADA score would be lower, in the 45% to 47% range. Does this mean that the Republicans are less conservative than perceived? Or are the Democrats more liberal?
I didn't get to study the figures too closely, but I think it might have something to do with the current polarization of the political landscape. There are a lot of extremely conservative people, but then there are a few very liberal people thrown into the mix to balance them out. You really need to analyze the data in other ways by looking at whether the distribution of scores is normal or not, etc. I might have also been under the impression that I was because of the vocality of people like Bill Frist.
Originally posted by BPSCG
Your mini-rant got me wondering about that ...
Wow, a "mini-rant"!? I didn't realize that I was so angry. :D

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
There are a lot of extremely conservative people, but then there are a few very liberal people thrown into the mix to balance them out.

That's rich. I love how self-professed "centrists" and "moderates" express themselves... JJ is another good example. Anyone right of Ted Kennedy looks like Hitler to you guys.

Just because they're discredited and not calling all the shots doesn't mean they've ceased to exist. We're not that lucky. On the contrary, we have the lefty version of Kerry, Kennedy, Reed, Pelosi, Boxer, Hillary, Schumer, Wrangel... shall I go on? All of these people are regulars on the Sunday morning circuit. They're not cloistered, though the DNC will wish they had been come the '08 elections.


You really need to analyze the data in other ways by looking at whether the distribution of scores is normal or not, etc. I might have also been under the impression that I was because of the vocality of people like Bill Frist.

Funny, all I hear these days is Pelosi getting progressively (HA! Get it?) more shrill. Have no doubts, there is at least an equal mix of left- and right-turning wingnuts out there. The only danger arises when you fail to recognize one of the two varieties.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Jocko
That's rich. I love how self-professed "centrists" and "moderates" express themselves... JJ is another good example. Anyone right of Ted Kennedy looks like Hitler to you guys.

And to you conservative types, anyone to the left of Pat Buchanan looks like Vladimir Lenin.

Result? Impasse.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Jocko
That's rich. I love how self-professed "centrists" and "moderates" express themselves... JJ is another good example. Anyone right of Ted Kennedy looks like Hitler to you guys.

Just because they're discredited and not calling all the shots doesn't mean they've ceased to exist. We're not that lucky. On the contrary, we have the lefty version of Kerry, Kennedy, Reed, Pelosi, Boxer, Hillary, Schumer, Wrangel... shall I go on? All of these people are regulars on the Sunday morning circuit. They're not cloistered, though the DNC will wish they had been come the '08 elections.


[B]

Funny, all I hear these days is Pelosi getting progressively (HA! Get it?) more shrill. Have no doubts, there is at least an equal mix of left- and right-turning wingnuts out there. The only danger arises when you fail to recognize one of the two varieties.

You think there're any centrists in there?

[DaChew]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Just wait until 2008, when you'll have Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton to choose from... :p

No way dude. John Edwards and Barak Obama. That's your 08' Dem ticket.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DaChew
No way dude. John Edwards and Barak Obama. That's your 08' Dem ticket.

John who?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Cleon
And to you conservative types, anyone to the left of Pat Buchanan looks like Vladimir Lenin.

Result? Impasse.

If arguing a baseless point with counterexamples is an impasse in your lexicon, then I'm afraid I can't do anything for you.

Curious about your attempt at equivalency here, Cleaon. If you would like to back that up with an example, or course, I'm always willing to listen... but that kind of sniping rarely comes with the luxury of truthfulness.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Grammatron
You think there're any centrists in there?

No, I don't. That's my point. Beware anyone who will prattle on ad infinitum over how moderate they are. I'm biased in my own ways; the difference is that I'm aware of how thick my lenses are... unlike the "20/20 vision" of BM Jr and JJ, among others.

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Grammatron
You think there're any centrists in there?

Ever since Jesse Ventura announced that he was a centrist, I've been calling myself and independant.


I know I'm a true independant because I've been called Hilter by the left and Lennin by the right. :D

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Jocko
If arguing a baseless point with counterexamples is an impasse in your lexicon, then I'm afraid I can't do anything for you.

It's very simple. The more you reduce everything to a caricature ("anyone right of Ted Kennedy looks like Hitler to you guys"), the more you wind up looking in a mirror.


Curious about your attempt at equivalency here, Cleaon. If you would like to back that up with an example, or course, I'm always willing to listen... but that kind of sniping rarely comes with the luxury of truthfulness.

I suppose you have an example of the "anyone right of Ted Kennedy looks like Hitler" theory? But, of course, that kind of sniping rarely comes with the luxury of truthfulness.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by DaChew
No way dude. John Edwards and Barak Obama. That's your 08' Dem ticket. Barak Obama yes, John Edwards....eh, the right has already had a chance to perfect their smears. Evil trial lawyer, Breck girl, etc.

Can anyone imagine Barak Obama vs. Condi Rice? A lot of white people in my area would have their heads explode. :D

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Cleon
It's very simple. The more you reduce everything to a caricature ("anyone right of Ted Kennedy looks like Hitler to you guys"), the more you wind up looking in a mirror.

Well, you see, CLEON, I responded to Batman Jr. and mentioned JJ, and I most certainly could produce examples. Had I included CLEON in that post, then I wouldn't feel so irritated to explain the obvious to you, CLEON, insofar as you were not included in the point, CLEON.

I've capitalized your name, CLEON, so you can better identify when I'm talking about you. I hope that helps, CLEON. Forget truthfulness - work on the literacy, CLEON.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Jocko
Well, you see, CLEON, I responded to Batman Jr. and mentioned JJ, and I most certainly could produce examples. Had I included CLEON in that post, then I wouldn't feel so irritated to explain the obvious to you, CLEON, insofar as you were not included in the point, CLEON.

I've capitalized your name, CLEON, so you can better identify when I'm talking about you. I hope that helpes, CLEON. Forget truthfulness - work on the literacy, CLEON.

Ah, good, maturity. :rolleyes:

You see, JOCKO, when you post in A PUBLIC THREAD, in a PUBLIC FORUM, EVERYONE has the ABILITY AND THE RIGHT to comment on YOUR POSTS.

If having OTHER PEOPLE comment on YOUR POSTS is a PROBLEM, I suggest sending a PRIVATE MESSAGE.

You see, I've capitalized the key parts of the above to call your attention to them. If you like, I could type slower, but somehow I still don't think the message would get through.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Cleon
Ah, good, maturity. :rolleyes:

You see, JOCKO, when you post in A PUBLIC THREAD, in a PUBLIC FORUM, EVERYONE has the ABILITY AND THE RIGHT to comment on YOUR POSTS.

If having OTHER PEOPLE comment on YOUR POSTS is a PROBLEM, I suggest sending a PRIVATE MESSAGE.

You see, I've capitalized the key parts of the above to call your attention to them. If you like, I could type slower, but somehow I still don't think the message would get through.

Sorry about trampling whatever rights you seem to think I've offended. Maybe you could bring up my fascist tendencies at your next Nader '08 meeting.

[Bruce]

This forum is NOT pathetic and NEVER degenerates into pointless fighting over differences in political opinion! So you can ALL suck my.....................how about a Guinness?

http://www.thorninpaw.com/u/htdocs/thorni/images/clinton.guinness.jpg

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Jocko
Sorry about trampling whatever rights you seem to think I've offended. Maybe you could bring up my fascist tendencies at your next Nader '08 meeting.

:rolleyes:

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Bruce
This forum is NOT pathetic and NEVER degenerates into pointless fighting over differences in political opinion! So you can ALL suck my.....................how about a Guinness?

http://www.thorninpaw.com/u/htdocs/thorni/images/clinton.guinness.jpg

mmmm...The purity, wonderment, and deliciousness of a nice pint of Guinness trancends all political differences.

Guinness is something everyone should be able to agree on. To Guinness!

:ire:

[Bruce]

Originally posted by Cleon
mmmm...The purity, wonderment, and deliciousness of a nice pint of Guinness trancends all political differences.

Guinness is something everyone should be able to agree on. To Guinness!

:ire:

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a picture of anyone on the Right drinking a pint of Guinness. :(

[Manny]

Originally posted by Bruce
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a picture of anyone on the Right drinking a pint of Guinness. :( At your service:

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2004/06/19/1087667309_6933.jpg


That pic you found is doubtless a rare one. President Clinton rarely, rarely drank. I'm betting that was at some function where he had to have a Guinness (like meeting in Ireland) and not a casual imbibe on his part.

[demon]

manny:
"President Clinton rarely, rarely drank. I'm betting that was at some function where he had to have a Guinness (like meeting in Ireland) and not a casual imbibe on his part."

Well, he didn`t inhale, so maybe he didn`t swallow...(an unfortunate word to have to use in a post about Clinton I know:p ).

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Cleon
mmmm...The purity, wonderment, and deliciousness of a nice pint of Guinness trancends all political differences.

Guinness is something everyone should be able to agree on. To Guinness!

:ire:
Only you commie lefties like Guiness. The thinking man prefers a Sammy Smith Oatmeal Stout when selecting a beer from the islands off western Europe. ;)

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Jocko
That's rich. I love how self-professed "centrists" and "moderates" express themselves... JJ is another good example. Anyone right of Ted Kennedy looks like Hitler to you guys.

Just because they're discredited and not calling all the shots doesn't mean they've ceased to exist. We're not that lucky. On the contrary, we have the lefty version of Kerry, Kennedy, Reed, Pelosi, Boxer, Hillary, Schumer, Wrangel... shall I go on? All of these people are regulars on the Sunday morning circuit. They're not cloistered, though the DNC will wish they had been come the '08 elections.
I never said I was a "moderate." In fact, I've explicitly stated otherwise. And to say that liberals in congress are "discredited" is to not mind your poorly constructed lenses as you say you do. Again, Kerry really is slightly to the right if you go issue by issue. He's rated as being more conservative than John McCain, one of the most widely lauded members of the GOP.
Originally posted by Jocko
Funny, all I hear these days is Pelosi getting progressively (HA! Get it?) more shrill. Have no doubts, there is at least an equal mix of left- and right-turning wingnuts out there. The only danger arises when you fail to recognize one of the two varieties.
I admit how I might have been wrong in my perceptions, and then you have to turn the conversation into some ridiculous diatribe on how I'm so biased and claim to be a "moderate." For such a bastion of rationality with such an extensive knowledge of your glasses or whatever, you sure do get flustered at the strangest little things.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by WildCat
Only you commie lefties like Guiness. The thinking man prefers a Sammy Smith Oatmeal Stout when selecting a beer from the islands off western Europe. ;)

Fascist. ;)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I never said I was a "moderate." In fact, I've explicitly stated otherwise. And to say that liberals in congress are "discredited" is to not mind your poorly constructed lenses as you say you do. Again, Kerry really is slightly to the right if you go issue by issue. He's rated as being more conservative than John McCain, one of the most widely lauded members of the GOP.

What of the other highly visible, proudly liberal names I mentioned? You're the one who claimed there are too many conservatives and not enough liberals to "balance them out."

[jj]

Those who argue that spending on vets has increased (are we measuring per-capita) perhaps weren't watching during the 1960's and 1970's when the various VA hospitals turned from decent hospitals into rather disgusting warehouses.

The fact we're doing a teeny-tiny bit about that now simply does not excuse the warehousing that the VA has become, and changing spending a little bit does not vindicate the people who point out that we, overall, since the 1960's, have treated the people who fought for us very, very shabbily in many respects. The ones who have been treated the worst, too, are those who gave the most in terms of mind and body.

I am very aware of vets who had, at least in the '70s and '80s, spend several months waiting to go to the VA doctor, or spend their own money to see another doctor for what was sometimes acute illnesses. I worked with several of them in NJ, right up the road from one of the bigger VA hospitals around. (Lyons, the popular name of which has since escaped me.)

I don't know if this still happens, most of the vets I knew were from WW2 or Korea, and there aren't a lot of them left, and those who were had moved out of NJ before I had.

It would be very good to see that such things don't happen any longer, but pointing to stopping that kind of a problem as progress, while technically true, doesn't really express how it goet to be that way in the first place.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Jocko
What of the other highly visible, proudly liberal names I mentioned? You're the one who claimed there are too many conservatives and not enough liberals to "balance them out."
Jocko, can't you ever be honest? I was speculating on BPSCG's averaging of the ADA scores and how it contradicts the impressions I get of congress from watching the news. One kind of reconciliation is to suggest uneven distribution of scores where there are in fact an excess of far-right wingers but then just enough people with extremely high ADA scores to bring the normative score to 48.20, or, in other words, to "balance them out." I also suggested that what I was seeing in the news was misrepresentative of the actual congress on account of certain media-addicted, nosy conservatives such as Frist, who likes to weigh in on people's private medical decisions by making his own diagnoses from badly-lit home movies and enjoys making wacky charges in a very public setting about the use of the filibuster, namely that people use it because they hate religious people or something like that.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Jocko, can't you ever be honest? I was speculating on BPSCG's averaging of the ADA scores and how it contradicts the impressions I get of congress from watching the news. One kind of reconciliation is to suggest uneven distribution of scores where there are in fact an excess of far-right wingers but then just enough people with extremely high ADA scores to bring the normative score to 48.20, or, in other words, to "balance them out." Love the way you refer to the conservatives as "far-right wingers" but the liberals as "people with extremely high ADA scores..." instead of "far-left wingers."

In fact, apart from your charged language, your speculation is accurate. The numbers are being crunched as I write this, but look for another thread on just this subject in the next day or so.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Love the way you refer to the conservatives as "far-right wingers" but the liberals as "people with extremely high ADA scores..." instead of "far-left wingers."

Because someone with a high ADA score is not necessarily a "far left-winger."

Bob Avakian is a "far left-winger." Dianne Feinstein is a moderate liberal.

[Piscivore]

I am an Erisian an-anarchist. I follow the rules, but don't expect that anyone else is going to.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Piscivore
I am an Erisian an-anarchist. I follow the rules, but don't expect that anyone else is going to. All Hail Discordia. (I'm Erisian Popular Front myself, basically Nihilist-Sophist.)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Cleon
Because someone with a high ADA score is not necessarily a "far left-winger."And this

http://www.kolkatabirds.com/fulvouswhistlingduck8.jpg

is not necessarily a duck.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
All Hail Discordia. (I'm Erisian Popular Front myself, basically Nihilist-Sophist.)

I'm not social enough for a popular front. I'm all by myself in the Fenchurch Dent Cabal. At least until I fully indoctrinate my daughter.

I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and existentially absurdist. Basically, I want to have a good time, and help others have a good time, yet not be taxed too heavily for it.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Love the way you refer to the conservatives as "far-right wingers" but the liberals as "people with extremely high ADA scores..." instead of "far-left wingers."

In fact, apart from your charged language, your speculation is accurate. The numbers are being crunched as I write this, but look for another thread on just this subject in the next day or so.
I didn't realize it made you cringe so much when you are reminded that the people you support are on the "far right." I don't care if the people I support are on the "far left." You people read all these crazy things into a little, innocent exercise in phrasal diversity.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I didn't realize it made you cringe so much when you are reminded that the people you support are on the "far right." I don't care if the people I support are on the "far left." You just don't care to call them that, but you have no problem calling conservatives "far right."
You people read all these crazy things into a little, innocent exercise in phrasal diversity. So how long you been writing for the New York Times? They also have no trouble finding "conservative" Republicans under every rock, while a "liberal" Democrat is a rare bird indeed:

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/1104.asp#9
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/1104.asp#3
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0712.asp
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2003/1230.asp
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/1117.asp
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/1111.asp#2
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/1103.asp#2

Lots more where that came from, but I don't want to clog up JREF's hard drives.

[Roadtoad]

I put down "Conservative," but I'm faking it. Just ask JJ.

[President Bush]

Originally posted by BPSCG
And this

http://www.kolkatabirds.com/fulvouswhistlingduck8.jpg

is not necessarily a duck.




http://www.thetalentshow.org/images/weirdface1.jpg
Am I really President Bush? Or are President Bush-authenticating experts here in danger of having their cover blown? Glancing around right now I am the only President Bush I see here. But there are others.

Though I'm not sure about that one (http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b3db27b3127cce97fdf5f3d8090000003610) in the flight suit. Mission accomplished?

How that fake (http://www.thismodernworld.org/bulge.jpg) genuine President Bush at the debates. How could anyone really think that was me?

It's enough to make an owl laugh out loud.

Yup, think it's safe to say that any reality of a single, independently-existing President Bush is gotten by methods that are, at best, uncertain.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by BPSCG
You just don't care to call them that, but you have no problem calling conservatives "far right."
I'm sorry, but didn't I just get finished explaining that I don't care whether or not the people I support are called "far-left wingers"?

[davefoc]

I share some other people's reservations about Bruce's poll but I was interested in it enough to check the results.

I see myself as a moderate libertarian, I wasn't quite sure what that translated to in Bruce's options, maybe a centrist.. In the non-JREF world people with my views are rare enough that I don't meet them often. I guess about 20% of the population might be roughly in sync with my views.

But in the forum I think the number of moderate libertarians is much higher. My guess is that the number is in the range of 50% but that is a wild ass guess and I look forward to seeing some polls and threads that might help get a better answer. As an aside, I am pretty sure that Bruce would meet my qualifications for membership in the moderate libertarian club. We moderate libertarians might even make up the largest political/philosophical group in the forum.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by BPSCG
And this

http://www.kolkatabirds.com/fulvouswhistlingduck8.jpg

is not necessarily a duck.

It's not. It's a picture of a duck.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I'm sorry, but didn't I just get finished explaining that I don't care whether or not the people I support are called "far-left wingers"? Excellent! - as Randi likes to say when he gets a woo-woo to (temporarily) agree to be tested. So does this mean that from now on, your posts will begin to refer to the "left wing" and the "extreme left wing" in a fair and balanced proportion to the equivalent right-wing cites? And that there will be no pretense that such luminaries as Harry Reid and Robert Byrd are somehow in the mainstream center of the plane, while people like John Warner are out on the wings of the aircraft?

We'll see how long this lasts... :p