This weekend was hard on this Republican

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 27, 2015 4:39:35 GMT -5 tallguy said:

On the other hand, I am decidedly on the traditionally conservative side with regard to spending (particularly deficits), immigration, death penalty, welfare, and other issues.  I am happy to expound on any of them, but to try to pigeonhole me as far left-leaning is ridiculous.  

Maybe it's because you've never actually expounded any of the traditionally conservative values you just listed.

What good is a "moderate" who only ever argues his leftist views? Where are you when it comes time to denounce deficits and support the death penalty? Show me anywhere on the board.

Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that being fiscally conservative but socially liberal makes one a "moderate". No... it makes one fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Furthermore, if you are a fiscal conservative, we've certainly never seen any evidence of it on the board.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2015 20:14:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 26, 2015 20:08:55 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Benghazi... you're funny. Most Amercans can't find it on a map, don't give a crap, and by the time the election rolls around won't even remember what happened over there. You might as well say she's unelectable because of green tea prices in Malaysia.

If that wishful thinking helps you sleep at night after seeing the current crop of Republican duds, then whatever, cling to it I suppose.

It's not "wishful thinking". "Wishful thinking" would be thinking that the average American voter actually cares enough to vote for the best person for the job. THAT would be "wishful thinking".

Romney would actually be a good candidate, and a good President... too bad he's likely unelectable too (probably several reasons, but a big one is, he's Mormon, and "religion voters" {mostly Christian} would never vote for a Mormon, so, by default, whomever he's running against gets their vote, automatically).

don't blame bigotry for his loss.  blame him.  that if you can't be president of the 47%, you shouldn't be president.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2015 22:57:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I agree with the bolded, but I also add that it's also important to not have a Democrat candidate elected. We need a President that's neither Democrat NOR Republican (we also need a Congress that's majority something other than those two as well).

If the Democrats were far-left I would agree, but they haven't been since Clinton.  And it would not take much to convince me that Obama is a moderate Republican.  He is certainly far more centrist than many people give him credit for.   Those who call him far-left, socialist, or communist are just bizarrely unaware.

I would like to see a study which compared the political positions of Obama and Reagan. I am betting they are VERY close.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 27, 2015 0:34:29 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Well, there's another difference between us.  I cannot even conceive of how to write a silly, drunken, piece of crap like that.  You seem to have perfected it.  Apparently a much-practiced experience for you?

he loves fiction.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 27, 2015 2:08:01 GMT -5 tallguy said:

If you think I am that left-leaning, that tells me far more about you than anything else.  There are a number of tests out there.  In every one I am pretty much dead-center between right and left (with a slight libertarian leaning.)  The only reason I may seem left is because the observer* is so far to the right.

* (that would be you.)

I have spent a lot of time studying this on boards.  those furthest from the center are most likely to miscategorize centrists.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 27, 2015 11:14:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 27, 2015 0:34:29 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Well, there's another difference between us.  I cannot even conceive of how to write a silly, drunken, piece of crap like that.  You seem to have perfected it.  Apparently a much-practiced experience for you?

he loves fiction.

Satire, my dear DJ. I have a fondness for satire.

Although... I suppose it is a type of fiction.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 27, 2015 11:17:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 27, 2015 2:08:01 GMT -5 tallguy said:

If you think I am that left-leaning, that tells me far more about you than anything else.  There are a number of tests out there.  In every one I am pretty much dead-center between right and left (with a slight libertarian leaning.)  The only reason I may seem left is because the observer* is so far to the right.

* (that would be you.)

I have spent a lot of time studying this on boards.  those furthest from the center are most likely to miscategorize centrists.

That would explain why you consistently miscategorize yourself as a centrist, then.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 27, 2015 11:21:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 27, 2015 11:17:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

I have spent a lot of time studying this on boards.  those furthest from the center are most likely to miscategorize centrists.

That would explain why you consistently miscategorize yourself as a centrist, then.

you must be thinking of yourself, because I have done no such thing.

I am a liberal, and proud of it.  I find moderates and straddlers like Romney and Obama very tiresome and unprincipled.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 27, 2015 12:58:57 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Hence you're saying that although it's ultimately a President's economic, military, environmental, etc. policies that matter most, you're going to vote more or less exclusively based on candidates' social policies?

When the candidate in question spends all his time talking about social issues, yeah. He chooses to make those a priority, not me.

I've argued the conservative side of several issues that have come up. I'm not a fan of the dream act or any path to amnesty for illegals. I'd rather see my government enforce our existing laws and immigration quotas, which exist for a reason, and deport everyone else. I also support overhauling the fourteenth amendment to get rid of the anchor baby loophole. That just came up last week.

Paragraph 1: I'd bet that even the more socially-minded candidates in the 2012 field like Huckabee and Santorum spent less than 15% of their campaign time on things like defense of marriage. I recall looking at Mr. Santorum's campaign site, and his views on marriage were one bullet point among several dozen on education, domestic policy, immigration, taxation, the environment, the military, etc.

If the US newsmedia chooses to broadcast the 5 minutes of any candidate's hour-long speech where he declares his views on abortion and homosexual unions, that wouldn't surprise me in the least since that's what viewers are going to tune in to watch. But if you want to know what a candidate actually talks about, you'd have to attend a speech in person or watch an unedited version of the complete event.

Moreover, in my experience people's aversion has more to do with the strength of a politician's convictions than the amount of time (s)he spends talking about social issues. The politician who lawyers his words and makes dispassionate statements like "I support the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman" (e.g. Pres. Obama in 2008) gets a 'by'. Conversely, the politician that comes out swinging as unambiguously pro-life and pro-DOMA in his/her campaign speeches, speaking on the topic with conviction, is the candidate to fear. Even if it's only five minutes of a 40-minute speech, those five minutes are an anathema to anyone who considers themselves politically moderate. I suspect they're also five minutes that would categorically rule out your willingness to vote for such a candidate, hence my statement.

Given the relative frequency and passion with which NMSNM members discuss social issues and non-social issues, the former clearly dictates voting patterns in our small group. I include race relations and gender issues in "social issues" here. Members may say otherwise, but we're talking about a board who's self-reported average IQ is 141. I put roughly the same amount of stock into both claims.

Paragraph 2: Fair enough. It's proof you can and will argue the conservative side of an issue. We'll see if Tall can find anything.

[tallguy]

Jan 27, 2015 8:27:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 27, 2015 4:39:35 GMT -5 tallguy said:

On the other hand, I am decidedly on the traditionally conservative side with regard to spending (particularly deficits), immigration, death penalty, welfare, and other issues.  I am happy to expound on any of them, but to try to pigeonhole me as far left-leaning is ridiculous.  

Maybe it's because you've never actually expounded any of the traditionally conservative values you just listed.

What good is a "moderate" who only ever argues his leftist views? Where are you when it comes time to denounce deficits and support the death penalty? Show me anywhere on the board.

Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that being fiscally conservative but socially liberal makes one a "moderate". No... it makes one fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Furthermore, if you are a fiscal conservative, we've certainly never seen any evidence of it on the board.

Which is exactly how I have described myself on every (at least a dozen?) occasion.

You apparently don't read me enough.  I have argued several (many?) times that deficits and the debt are what is ultimately going to destroy this country.  It is the primary reason that the Reagan presidency was a disaster for this country: That his administration began the belief system that deficits and the debt were no big deal.  To illustrate how deep and long-lasting that belief is, I did a term paper in a college Economics class about the national debt.  That was at the beginning of Reagan's term, inspired by the lunacy of his campaign promises and talking points.  It is the reason the Bush tax cuts were such a massively stupid act.  We had a real chance to make significant progress on if not eradicate the debt entirely, and he massively f***ed it up.  I have said several times that deficit spending is ONLY appropriate in times of recession and war, and that running deficits in times of peace and prosperity is unconscionable.

I have argued several times that ALL illegal aliens should be deported.  While this country was built on immigration, it is not incumbent upon us to take in everyone who wants to come here.  If you want to help people come to America, help those who are doing it the right way.  Help those who have applied through legal channels, and are going through all the hoops to do so.  Help those who are demonstrating a respect for this country and its laws BEFORE they even get here.  Those are the people we should be welcoming to America.  EVERY illegal allowed to stay is a slap in the face to EVERY person attempting to enter this country the right way.  I have also argued that the Supreme Court erred in Ark, and that there is NOTHING to justify birthright citizenship.  The clause, "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." eliminates illegal aliens, since they are foreign nationals and by being here illegally have specifically NOT subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

I have argued not only that I am in favor of the death penalty, but that I think it should be expanded.  I would also dramatically cut the appeals process so that sentences would actually be carried out.  Specifically, I would create a new class of crime, Defrauding the American Public, which I would classify as treason, with all the attendant penalties thereof.  I would also make a capital crime ANY offense with a gun, whether if was fired or merely brandished.  To use a gun in the commission of a crime is prima facie evidence of a lack of respect for human life.  With that abdication, society then has no responsibility to value his in return. 

I have argued against our current welfare system.  Specifically, that I would try to minimize direct cash assistance and am absolutely against increasing benefits for having more children WHILE on welfare.

Need I go on?

Because going back and searching old posts in an attempt to pull a "Gotcha!" is far more your interest than mine, I trust there won't be a need to actually dig up old posts as proof.  Stating it clearly here should be sufficient, should it not?     

[tallguy]

Jan 27, 2015 8:10:51 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 27, 2015 2:08:01 GMT -5 tallguy said:

As for you, possibly because your main motivation for posting is to criticize Paul's contributions, I can't rightly think of a single issue where you've come down on the conservative side of the argument. That puts you at a solid 1.0. If I've missed something, point it out. Show me where in the history of our board you've fallen on the right (politically) side of a right/left debate.

That is hardly my main motivation for posting.  It is merely an enjoyable side-benefit of my time here.  Fortunately, he seems always ready to present me the opportunity.

As a side note, it is correct that I spend most of my time here arguing against the right.  I have on at least a couple of occasions lamented the fact that I never get to indulge my inner conservative here.  That is mostly because the left-leaning posters and positions I would argue against are not nearly as prevalent or as mind-bogglingly "out there" as the far-right nonsense, nor are those posters anywhere near as likely to misrepresent the other side as are the far-right.  Given that the time I am willing to spend here is somewhat limited, one has to prioritize.  And since you should remember from MSN moderating days that my priority is "the integrity of the debate" it should come as little surprise that I prefer to spend it fighting nonsense and bullsh** rather than merely in academic debate.   

Also, Virgil, I have clearly stated here that my biases are in favor of individual liberties and equal protection.  It should be obvious then that my most fervent postings will be in those areas.  And invariably it is the far-right who are against those.  Hence my most fervent postings will be in opposition to the far-right.  I am willing to own my biases.  Are you? 

[tallguy]

Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that being fiscally conservative but socially liberal makes one a "moderate". No... it makes one fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

For the record (again) I describe myself as moderate, independent, socially liberal, fiscally conservative.  I believe that everyone in this country has the right to live their life pretty much any way they want to, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same.  What they do NOT have is the right to expect the rest of us to pay for their choices.

When I was younger I included the phrase, "With Republican leanings."  The term Rockefeller Republican would be closest, although as I recall they were more in favor of expansive social programs than I and were also more favorable to labor unions than I.  The Republican Party left me long ago, however.  With the mad dash to the right that the current idiots are making, it is going to be a long time before I am willing to cast a vote their way again.  It is my sincerest hope that sanity prevails and the moderates regain control, or that the lunatic fringe splits off and forms its own group.          

[Virgil Showlion]

Sure I've got biases.

"Biases" is often just another word for "presumptions", which are the product of experience. As long as the biases a poster admits to sync up with the biases (s)he actually exhibits, I have no problem with them.

This is the first time I've ever seen you indulge your inner conservative. I'm floored here. I should challenge you guys more often.

[tallguy]

This is the first time I've ever seen you indulge your inner conservative. I'm floored here. I should challenge you guys more often.

Or alternatively, you could entreat your fellow conservatives not to be such morons.  That would allow us to be more even-handed.   

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 27, 2015 23:31:26 GMT -5 tallguy said:

This is the first time I've ever seen you indulge your inner conservative. I'm floored here. I should challenge you guys more often.

Or alternatively, you could entreat your fellow conservatives not to be such morons.  That would allow us to be more even-handed.   

The conservative you like most has had you on 'ignore' for the better part of two years now. He doesn't read a thing you say, and even if he did he wouldn't care.

[tallguy]

I always wondered about that, although the poster has both responded to and quoted me.  Can't be on ignore, at least now.  In any event, though, I agree.  Far too hubristic to care.

But still, that isn't the only one.  Anyone who wants to deny personal liberties, or defend discrimination, or any of several other examples of "misguided thought" will get a response.

[tallguy]

Jan 26, 2015 23:00:12 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Jan 26, 2015 22:57:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

If the Democrats were far-left I would agree, but they haven't been since Clinton.  And it would not take much to convince me that Obama is a moderate Republican.  He is certainly far more centrist than many people give him credit for.   Those who call him far-left, socialist, or communist are just bizarrely unaware.

Bingo! Give that man a cookie. My only criticism of Obama is that he's too much like Bush, not too far away.

Not that I'm complaining, really, but I still haven't gotten my cookie. 

[Opti]

Jan 26, 2015 23:58:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Tall, Dark, and Bill sharing a beer:

"You know what Obama's problem is? He's not far enough left."
"Darn straight. He needs to be more left."
"We haven't had any good left since Clinton got in. He wasn't left enough either."
"Hear hear!"
"What do you think about Hillary Clinton?"
"She'd be good if she were a little further to the left."
"I agree, but I think it would be best if she was a lot to the left."
"Yeah, like, to the left of left."
"Because right now, the Dem-"
"Or to the left of left... of left. I... wait. Who are we talking about again?"
"Right now, the Democrats are so far right, it's literally impossible to... not be left of them, right?"

(3 hours later)

"...and tha's what I kept telling my wife. I said... I said, 'Honey, I like your bird but he's jus'...  he's jus' not f... n far enough to the left.'"
"I hear you. I... hear you. My f... my grandkids so needs to be further to my left... their left. Wait? Is it my left or... or your left?"
"I dunno, man. But left. That's what the world needs is all the kids... all those kids... all goin' left."
"Yep."
"Yep."

...

"Well, I gotta go home. But sure is nice... it sure's nice for us three moderates t' get together and talk every once in a while."

How incredibly odd. If Dark, TG, and Bills did get together to talk politics they'd

probably do the usual thing like discuss issues.

So far I've only seen those on the right really obsessed with right and left plus having

some clear if incorrect definitions of what left and right mean. Life must be very different

for some on the right to right against the edge side of life.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 28, 2015 9:00:33 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 26, 2015 23:58:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Tall, Dark, and Bill sharing a beer:

"You know what Obama's problem is? He's not far enough left."
"Darn straight. He needs to be more left."
"We haven't had any good left since Clinton got in. He wasn't left enough either."
"Hear hear!"
"What do you think about Hillary Clinton?"
"She'd be good if she were a little further to the left."
"I agree, but I think it would be best if she was a lot to the left."
"Yeah, like, to the left of left."
"Because right now, the Dem-"
"Or to the left of left... of left. I... wait. Who are we talking about again?"
"Right now, the Democrats are so far right, it's literally impossible to... not be left of them, right?"

(3 hours later)

"...and tha's what I kept telling my wife. I said... I said, 'Honey, I like your bird but he's jus'...  he's jus' not f... n far enough to the left.'"
"I hear you. I... hear you. My f... my grandkids so needs to be further to my left... their left. Wait? Is it my left or... or your left?"
"I dunno, man. But left. That's what the world needs is all the kids... all those kids... all goin' left."
"Yep."
"Yep."

...

"Well, I gotta go home. But sure is nice... it sure's nice for us three moderates t' get together and talk every once in a while."

How incredibly odd. If Dark, TG, and Bills did get together to talk politics they'd

probably do the usual thing like discuss issues.

So far I've only seen those on the right really obsessed with right and left plus having

some clear if incorrect definitions of what left and right mean. Life must be very different

for some on the right to right against the edge side of life.

You guys are reading too much into this.

It was a parody of the back slapping at the end of the page two, with Tall and Dark feeding each other cookies for having agreed that Pres. Clinton was too far right and Pres. Obama is too far right and the Democrats are too far right, and the Republicans are "are so far-right [it's] disastrous", etc.  Billis got in because he "liked" the cookie exchange.

Now Dark and Tall have revealed they're no fans of runaway deficit spending, they don't support the leftist "no one is illegal" amnesty-for-all agenda, Tall is a death penalty supporter, Dark has taken a hard line stance on welfare and special education, and several things besides that make it clear their angst isn't categorically with "the right" but instead with a panoply of issues on both sides of the spectrum. That is consistent with a centrist position. "Everything needs to move left" is not a centrist position.

We should probably start a discussion on why being a centrist is desirable, since there's no universal law that states the most reasonable position is politically centered (and indeed it's a trivial matter to think of counterexamples). My concern is simply whether posters' self-assigned labels comport with their ideology.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 28, 2015 8:12:50 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Anybody who is intellectually honest and thinks with any amount of "depth" will not be easily pigeonholed as completely conservative/ right or liberal/ left, imo.

this is a brilliant observation.

well put.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 28, 2015 13:49:41 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

My concern is simply whether posters' self-assigned labels comport with their ideology.

But there's the rub. You labeled us as left leaning posters. I don't self-assign that label, and think anyone who would assign it to me is either not paying attention, or so far right the actual Republican party looks like left wing loons from thier position.

I wasn't previously aware of any of the conservative views you listed in this thread. Some of them you mentioned in the context of the old boards, hence from more than four years ago. You obviously don't express them often.

Conversely, I can point you to two dozen instances in the past year alone where you've gone after the GOP and the political right. In the one debate we had last year about the abuses of the Patriot Act, you consistently deflected blame from Pres. Obama to Pres. Bush, which is usually a bright red flag. I'm not sure if it's fair to say that your willingness to express your left-leaning views outweighs your willingness to express your right-leaning views 100-to-1, but that's the ratio I happened to read it in. Maybe I just didn't read the right threads.

As for your statement:

You self-assigned the label "centrist". Or, more specifically, you claimed not to be left-leaning, and since you're obviously not right-leaning, that leaves "centrist" as the only alternative. This label didn't comport with Dark in the flesh.

Tall has claimed that he's compelled to go after the right-leaning posters on the board because he really doesn't like them, and so fine. That explains the schism between Tall the ideologue and Tall the poster.

With you, I'm not sure why you argue so lopsidedly. You fervently go after the religious right at every opportunity. You slam everyone and everything associated with the GOP, with a perfect example being your "ashamed to be a Republican" post in this thread--a lamentation you've made many times in the past. I don't think I've ever seen you criticize Pres. Obama or the Democrats, except in contexts when you're able to disclaim that the Republicans are worse.

Hence excuse me for labeling you "left-leaning", but all the red flags were there. And frankly, if you express your leftist views ten or a hundred times as often as your rightist views, it hardly matters what your ideology is. Leftist is as leftist does.

Finally, my claim wasn't that you're "far left", it's that you, Tall, and Billis are among the five most left-leaning posters on the board. And considering there are only maybe 15 posters who regularly show up on the board to talk politics, it's not as though that puts you way out in left field. Even after his revelations in this thread, Tall still ranks among the top five. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. It is what it is. I'd rank myself as the second most right-leaning poster on the board, and that's the best place to be ISFAIC.

[billisonboard]

Jan 28, 2015 15:10:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... Billis ... among the five most left-leaning posters on the board. ...

I protest this characterization. I do not lean. I stand straight with my feet firmly planted on ground convention considers to be left of some hypothetical "center".

[Value Buy]

Jan 28, 2015 17:50:27 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

On this board I appear more left leaning because the P&M board tilts overwhelmingly right.  If you get 14 tea party whackadoodles and one centrist in a room together the one centrist will seem like a left wing loony in comparison.  I argue more leftist/centrist positions because most threads here are started by right leaning posters.  We very rarely have a thread that starts from a point of open honest debate about an issue.  The first post is always a right wing take on a specific event, bill, speech, statement, or just copying a blog post or news story from a very right wing website.  It frames the argument as right wing from the beginning so a centrist will appear left while trying to correct some of the right wing ideology and regurgitated talking points.

If I spent time commenting on a board that tilted pretty far left I would be the right wing loony.  At least if I opened my mouth about education, abortion, welfare, unions, and probably plenty of other topics.

I disagree with you about politics board as being overwhelmingly right.

And evt is now right up there with Paul in starting some really far flung threads.

At least Paul usually has a good argument on the thesis of the thread.

As far as which side starts the most threads, you could be correct, the right leads.

That really does not mean anything. The left leads in the posting numbers.

Do you want me to make a list of righties and lefties who post on the Politics board?

[dondub]

That would be fun.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 28, 2015 17:50:27 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

On this board I appear more left leaning because the P&M board tilts overwhelmingly right.  If you get 14 tea party whackadoodles and one centrist in a room together the one centrist will seem like a left wing loony in comparison.  I argue more leftist/centrist positions because most threads here are started by right leaning posters.  We very rarely have a thread that starts from a point of open honest debate about an issue.  The first post is always a right wing take on a specific event, bill, speech, statement, or just copying a blog post or news story from a very right wing website.  It frames the argument as right wing from the beginning so a centrist will appear left while trying to correct some of the right wing ideology and regurgitated talking points.

If I spent time commenting on a board that tilted pretty far left I would be the right wing loony.  At least if I opened my mouth about education, abortion, welfare, unions, and probably plenty of other topics.

I have to agree with VB.

Major Poster	Posting Frequency	Leaning (-1 [Full-on Left] to +1 [Full-on Right])
djpolldancer	100	-0.4
swamp	10	-0.3
zibazinski	20	0.6
mmhmm	40	-0.4
SpaceCoastPaul	60	0.9
Tennesseer	60	-0.9
Sum Dum Gai	20	-0.5 (in terms of how he posts)
billisonboard	50	-0.5
Virgil Seafaring	60	0.8 (in terms of how he posts)
midjd	10	-0.2
chiver78	10	-0.5
Green Eyed Lady	20	0.3
Optimist4Balance	30	-0.1
weltschmerz	30	-0.8
Miss Tequila	10	0.4
deziloooooo	20	-0.3
Angel!	10	-0.5
Ahamburger	10	0.5
Shivering Shooby	20	0.7
EVT1	80	-0.7
steff	10	-0.9
The Captain	10	0.1
Value Buy	30	0.7
b2r	30	0.7
deminmaine	20	-0.4
ken a.k.a OMK	10	-0.2
workpublic	20	0.6
jkapp	20	0.6
RichardInTN	40	-0.2
Politically_Incorrect12	10	0.2
jma 23	10	0.5
laterbloomer	20	-0.1
Tall Guy	20	-0.7 (in terms of how he posts)
dondub	40	-0.8
oped	30	-0.5

The data give us a median of -0.2.

By weighted median, which is a far better reflection of the board's content, we get -0.4. Although that's not uber-left, it's still notably left-leaning.

[Jaguar]

Awesome ! I didn't make your list.

[Opti]

Jan 28, 2015 20:39:50 GMT -5 Jaguar said:

Awesome ! I didn't make your list.

Thanks for giving me a LOL.

[Value Buy]

Virgil, what is "posting frequency"? Number of posts?

As far the listing, I only see two posters that I have pegged incorrectly (by a considerable amount) if I go by your numbers.

One was Right, one was Left.

[tallguy]

It was a parody of the back slapping at the end of the page two, with Tall and Dark feeding each other cookies for having agreed that Pres. Clinton was too far right and Pres. Obama is too far right and the Democrats are too far right, and the Republicans are "are so far-right [it's] disastrous", etc. Billis got in because he "liked" the cookie exchange.

Again, I think you severely misread the exchange.  My belief, which I have stated here at least a couple times, is that the best thing Clinton did was move the Democratic Party toward the center.  Obama is actually a continuation of that.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is, as I said earlier, bizarrely unaware.  Dark was agreeing with that belief.  Neither of us are anywhere near the "left-wing loon" that we were portrayed.

(And should a perceived need to repeat the stunt ever arise, be aware that 1) I almost never drink.  2) Even if I do, I do not EVER become slurringly nonsensical.  And 3) It would NEVER be beer.)       

[Opti]

Jan 28, 2015 18:57:43 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jan 28, 2015 17:50:27 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

On this board I appear more left leaning because the P&M board tilts overwhelmingly right.  If you get 14 tea party whackadoodles and one centrist in a room together the one centrist will seem like a left wing loony in comparison.  I argue more leftist/centrist positions because most threads here are started by right leaning posters.  We very rarely have a thread that starts from a point of open honest debate about an issue.  The first post is always a right wing take on a specific event, bill, speech, statement, or just copying a blog post or news story from a very right wing website.  It frames the argument as right wing from the beginning so a centrist will appear left while trying to correct some of the right wing ideology and regurgitated talking points.

If I spent time commenting on a board that tilted pretty far left I would be the right wing loony.  At least if I opened my mouth about education, abortion, welfare, unions, and probably plenty of other topics.

I disagree with you about politics board as being overwhelmingly right.

And evt is now right up there with Paul in starting some really far flung threads.

At least Paul usually has a good argument on the thesis of the thread.

As far as which side starts the most threads, you could be correct, the right leads.

That really does not mean anything. The left leads in the posting numbers.

Do you want me to make a list of righties and lefties who post on the Politics board?

No. Reading Virgil's list shows me how much of it is pure perception.

We used to have a few definite lefties and way more conservative posters.

They are gone now. We are left with less extreme posters overall and perhaps

some hardened ones.

I think EVT and Paul lead thread creation and we all probably know their hot buttons.

I wish we were able to discuss issues more often instead of needing to call this right

or this left, but maybe someday...

FWIW, I miss one of my favorite towards the left posters, Craftysarah. I didn't always

agree with her but I loved how calm and reasoned she tended to post. I also miss Oldtex

who tended towards the right. Hopefully some day they will both come back and bring

their wonderful civility with them.