This weekend was hard on this Republican

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 28, 2015 20:49:09 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

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.

Generally speaking, they're my estimates of how often posters post on the political forums (CE and Politics), with 100 being DJ.

Hence you can think of them as "for every hundred posts of DJ's I read on the political forums, I read X of this poster's posts".

If my numbers are inaccurate in that regard, let me know which ones.

[Value Buy]

Virgil,

the posters I mentioned were the actual rankings rather than posting frequency. 

[tallguy]

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.

That is a misinterpretation.  I do not like the way they misrepresent the other side in attempting to frame the argument.  Even with the one poster we discussed earlier, I care not a whit about their politics.  It is the hypocrisy and lack of intellectual integrity that is the source of animus.  That would be the same for a left-leaning poster.  It happens that much more of that comes from the right, but is my resulting posting style a cause or an effect?  And of what?  It is not that I don't like conservative posters.  Not that at all.    

[Opti]

Jan 28, 2015 13:44:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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

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.

I reread it, and I guess I just see it differently. I thought TG was happy Clinton moved to

the center. Many of us think W, Obama, Mitt and others are kind of flavors off the original

Bush. More similar than different.

FWIW, I think amnesty for all or something close to it is more a corporatist agenda

than any particular part of the political spectrum. Those posters who could realistically

be considered lefties have been gone for awhile, a few banned others just left. EVT is the

closest we have and that's really only on one issue. He's a gun owner who hates stupid

and careless gun owners so we get quite a few dumb gun owner threads.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 28, 2015 20:33:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion 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 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.

it is great to see you get creative.  first you fabricate an assessment, then you appraise posters according to the fabricated assessment, then you average that fabrication.

genius.  if you ever decide to go to work in the media, i would recommend Breitbart for you.

[djAdvocate]

for the record, i find b2r and zib FAR right of Paul and VB.

edit: and there is no way Richard is -0.2.  but that exposes your bias, which i would rate at about the same amount.

[djAdvocate]

we could do an actual study that didn't involve your personal bias, if you would like.

i am betting that if we did that, the board would be very close to zero if you eliminate me.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 26, 2015 8:46:45 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

After watching various news reports on the member after merber of the far far right of the Republicans embarrassing themselves publicly for America to see, I may have to retire from the party.

Palin was the last straw.

Her speech was embarrassing. Beyond embarrassing.

Bush and Mitt avoided the weekend fiasco, so as to be not be tainted by it, but I am afraid the far right has stolen the party much as the far left has stolen the Democratic party.

The Republican party has not been stolen by the Tea Party. The far far right make them look like blue dog Democrats. Dead on arrival.

I am beginning to believe that Bush or Mitt are doomed in the nomination process, and they are the only candidates that have a chance against Clinton.

It's hard to get more tainted than Jeb "Common Core" Bush, and Mitt "ObamneyCare" Romney.  I'm looking at the records, not the rhetoric.  That's why I supported Newt.  That's why Scott Walker has climbed up into my #2 slot behind Rand Paul, whom I think would give not merely the GOP, but the nation as a whole the first real policy look at a libertarian-leaning conservative since the era of the founders.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Virgil, I think you got me right. I'm a moderate but have been leaning a little left. So -0.2 sounds right.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 28, 2015 21:19:14 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 28, 2015 13:44:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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.

I reread it, and I guess I just see it differently. I thought TG was happy Clinton moved to the center. ...

... EVT is the closest [leftie] we have and that's really only on one issue.

Tall claims that he was characterizing the shift to the middle as a positive thing, but that doesn't make sense in the context of his previous statements (re Republicans being "so far-right at this point that it would be disastrous" to elect one). Dark clearly interprets the "move to the middle" statement the same way I did, since his response is "Bingo. Pres. Obama is too much like Pres. Bush."  Unless a shift right is a shift away from Pres. Bush, he obviously had the same interpretation that I did: that Tall was bemoaning the Democrats' shift from left to center under Pres. Clinton.

Tenn, steff, and Weltz are as socially left-leaning as any sane person can get.

To the best of my knowledge, Paul and I are the only vocal social conservatives on the board. Shooby qualifies for some issues, Richard qualifies for some, Dark apparently qualifies for some, and Tall apparently supports the death penalty.

I guarantee you that in a debate on any of the hot button issues: abortion, homosexual "marriage", rights of the business owner, personal responsibility, competency to vote, etc., the discussion is going to be at best 2-on-15 or 3-on-15 favouring the liberal side of the issue. It's like walking into a blast furnace for any social conservative bold/dumb enough to do it. On a purely social basis the board ranks a -0.95. We have posters here who've argued in defense of "PIV = rape", infanticide, and suicide clinics, for Pete's sakes.

The board is more balanced on the non-social side of the equation but still left-leaning. A large part of this is due to the fact that so many posters are i) locked into the Republican-Democrat dialectic and ii) tolerate the Democrats more. It translates into a surfeit of "Bush = bad", "Reagan = bad", "Obama = not as bad as Bush", "Democrats = not as bad as Republicans", "Republicans = too obstructive", "Obama = doing the best he can", which posters here may not realize translate into "left", "left", "left", "left", "left", and "left" respectively in terms of how they fit into the political spectrum.

Again what I'm talking about here is what posters actually talk about and go to the wall to defend. I don't care if Tall is the most hard core right ideologue on the board, if the only thing he ever does is take conservatives to task while never uttering a word in their support, that's who Tall the Internet poster really is.

Jan 28, 2015 21:27:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is great to see you get creative.  first you fabricate an assessment, then you appraise posters according to the fabricated assessment, then you average that fabrication.

genius.  if you ever decide to go to work in the media, i would recommend Breitbart for you.

So make up own table based on your own perceptions and show us how things really are. All you have to do is quote my post and change the numbers in the table.

The numbers I published are the median and the weighted median, not the averages.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 28, 2015 21:35:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

we could do an actual study that didn't involve your personal bias, if you would like.

i am betting that if we did that, the board would be very close to zero if you eliminate me.

Propose away. As long as it measures what posters say rather than what they think, and it doesn't rely on Internet "where are you on the political spectrum" surveys or test instruments that rely on subjective self-evaluation, I'm all for it.

[tallguy]

Jan 28, 2015 23:36:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 28, 2015 21:19:14 GMT -5 Opti said:

I reread it, and I guess I just see it differently. I thought TG was happy Clinton moved to the center. ...

... EVT is the closest [leftie] we have and that's really only on one issue.

Tall claims that he was characterizing the shift to the middle as a positive thing, but that doesn't make sense in the context of his previous statements (re Republicans being "so far-right at this point that it would be disastrous" to elect one). Dark clearly interprets the "move to the middle" statement the same way I did, since his response is "Bingo. Pres. Obama is too much like Pres. Bush."  Unless a shift right is a shift away from Pres. Bush, he obviously had the same interpretation that I did: that Tall was bemoaning the Democrats' shift from left to center under Pres. Clinton.

Okay, you've convinced me.  I take it back.  You're not that bright, and you really don't see distinctions.  Let me make an analogy that should be exactly on point.

I am physically comfortable at a temperature of 70 degrees.  If someone moves the thermostat from 50 to 60 I am happy about that.  I think of it as a positive thing.  I also consider it dangerous if someone else wants to set it at 125. 

Get it now?   

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 29, 2015 0:31:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jan 28, 2015 23:36:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Tall claims that he was characterizing the shift to the middle as a positive thing, but that doesn't make sense in the context of his previous statements (re Republicans being "so far-right at this point that it would be disastrous" to elect one). Dark clearly interprets the "move to the middle" statement the same way I did, since his response is "Bingo. Pres. Obama is too much like Pres. Bush."  Unless a shift right is a shift away from Pres. Bush, he obviously had the same interpretation that I did: that Tall was bemoaning the Democrats' shift from left to center under Pres. Clinton.

Okay, you've convinced me.  I take it back.  You're not that bright, and you really don't see distinctions.  Let me make an analogy that should be exactly on point.

I am physically comfortable at a temperature of 70 degrees.  If someone moves the thermostat from 50 to 60 I am happy about that.  I think of it as a positive thing.  I also consider it dangerous if someone else wants to set it at 125. 

Get it now?   

Every indication from your exchange with Dark is that you agree the Democrats and Republicans have concertedly moved too far right. Since Pres. Obama and the Democrats are nowhere near conservative--either socially or economically--the only reasonable inference is that the point on the spectrum you gentlemen collectively define as "the center", where the Democrats are sitting now, is in fact left of center.

Furthermore, since Pres. Bush was right of Pres. Obama, if you agree with Dark that Pres. Obama is too much like Pres. Bush, the obvious implication is that you'd prefer Pres. Obama to move even further left than where he is now.

[dondub]

Obama no where near conservative? Who had the lowest income tax rates since Ike. That close isn't it?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 29, 2015 1:52:47 GMT -5 dondub said:

Obama no where near conservative? Who had the lowest income tax rates since Ike. That close isn't it?

Balanced budgets and belt-tightening are conservative. Lower taxes are sometimes included, but they include commensurate cuts in spending.

In my home province of Alberta, the Conservatives are the party people elect if deficits are getting out of control and need to be reined in. The Liberals are the party people elect if they want government to spend money like drunken sailors on things like cell phones for the poor, tuition for college students, and expanded healthcare programs in spite of record deficits.

[tallguy]

In this country at least, balanced budgets perhaps USED TO BE conservative.  Fifty years ago.  It is now just another of those things to which they pay lip service.  There has been no financial responsibility since Reagan.

It is still to a great extent "tax-and-spend Democrats" vs. "borrow-and-spend Republicans."  They both spend, just on different things.  And while one at least tries to pay for it through taxes, the other just defers it by exploding the debt.  And it is not just the politicians.  Even rank-and-file members of the public only really care about cutting OTHER PEOPLE'S spending.  

I obviously cannot speak for Alberta politics, but U.S. politics reminds me of a John Kenneth Galbraith quote:

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

 In a quick search to ensure I had the right wording, I ran across a few others that may fit.* 

“The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.”

“The complaints of the privileged are too often confused with the voice of the masses.”

“If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.”

“It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought.”

*Any possibility of anti-conservative interpretation here is provided just for Virgil, to allow him to justify his contention that I am anti-conservative.    
 

[Deleted]

I am so perfectly centered I didn't make the chart.

[Opti]

Tall claims that he was characterizing the shift to the middle as a positive thing, but that doesn't make sense in the context of his previous statements (re Republicans being "so far-right at this point that it would be disastrous" to elect one). Dark clearly interprets the "move to the middle" statement the same way I did, since his response is "Bingo. Pres. Obama is too much like Pres. Bush." Unless a shift right is a shift away from Pres. Bush, he obviously had the same interpretation that I did: that Tall was bemoaning the Democrats' shift from left to center under Pres. Clinton.

The bad thing about certain worldviews is they can make you see things that aren't

there or mis-interpret things. You are trying to link up things in a way that they aren't

to fit your view of what these posters must be.

TG said Clinton's shift to the middle was good. I think what he means about Republicans

shift to the right now is the extreme focus on social issues that was nowhere near as

prevalent even twenty years ago.

I think Pres. Obama and Bush are too much alike but it has little to do with whether I

objectively see them in the middle or not. Its purely a policy thing for me. I strongly

disagree with their shared stances on TARP, spending $$$$ on wars we can not win nor

IMO should be fighting, Patriot Act stuff, etc. People who see politics as purely some slider

scale from right to left or left to right miss that some of us care more about issues and

realize many politicians hold what might be considered mix views if you look at the right/left

artificial paradigm.

I think Dark is bemoaning the fact Obama is like Bush. I think its a mistake to read anything

into that like he wants Obama to shift left or right. Because Virgil, he didn't say anything

about shifting right or left. He didn't even say all the policies he wants or doesn't. You are

interpreting it based purely on how you are viewing politics now as a right/left thing and

thankfully many of us do not. For example, I liked the senior Paul's(politician) desire for

non-intervention in non US politics. He is basically the only politician who really advertises

that view. Pretty much everyone else is interventionist and nation building/meddling to

various extents. So where would that really fall if you had to use a slider scale of left and right?

IDK, and for the most part don't care because I think right/left is artificial and constrained.

[Opti]

The board is more balanced on the non-social side of the equation but still left-leaning. A large part of this is due to the fact that so many posters are i) locked into the Republican-Democrat dialectic and ii) tolerate the Democrats more. It translates into a surfeit of "Bush = bad", "Reagan = bad", "Obama = not as bad as Bush", "Democrats = not as bad as Republicans", "Republicans = too obstructive", "Obama = doing the best he can", which posters here may not realize translate into "left", "left", "left", "left", "left", and "left" respectively in terms of how they fit into the political spectrum.

I think it can translate in left, left, left, if that's how you choose to see it. I know I and

some others react strongly to the fact Paul's opening "arguments" tend to be more buzzword

bash drive-bys than actual discussions of an issue. Because of that extreme in your face

right is always right slant, I do not criticize Obama as much as I might given the huge amount

of Obama is communism Muslim over-taking the US and the world crap that I am subject to

on this board.

While its not mentioned as often, I think you miss most posters weren't fans of Carter either.

We are all influenced by how other posters post. While its true many of the strong conservatives

don't post here as often, but that has happened to many of us including myself. The focus on

what's right and what's left has really detracted from discussing issues and personal stances.

[Opti]

I guarantee you that in a debate on any of the hot button issues: abortion, homosexual "marriage", rights of the business owner, personal responsibility, competency to vote, etc., the discussion is going to be at best 2-on-15 or 3-on-15 favouring the liberal side of the issue. It's like walking into a blast furnace for any social conservative bold/dumb enough to do it. On a purely social basis the board ranks a -0.95. We have posters here who've argued in defense of "PIV = rape", infanticide, and suicide clinics, for Pete's sakes.

On hot button issues, Shooby, Zib, VB and others often pop in but I can see as you

might see it as 2 or 3 versus many if you are anchoring the very conservative end of an issue.

I think your POV makes it hard for you to notice no one argued that "PIV = rape" nor was

there any love of what you are calling suicide clinics. Honestly I think I was the only one

who said I understood how someone who had the worldview the "PIV - rape" could believe that.

Not that I agreed, but I understood.

Socially we are not super left as a board. We are mixed. If you aren't far right on social issues

you'd see that we don't all agree on everything and we all have our nuances on various issues.

What's considered conservative or liberal social issue wise changes as time goes on. At one time

inter-racial marriage was considered highly liberal. Now, not so much. I think that will happen

as well with gay marriage as it already has more than 50% support so it really can't be defined

as a highly liberal position any more in the US.

[Tennesseer]

Major Poster	Posting Frequency  	Leaning (-2 [Full-on Left] to +2 [Full-on Right])
djpolldancer	100	-0.4
swamp	10	-0.3
zibazinski	20	0.5
mmhmm	40	-0.4
SpaceCoastPaul	60	1.6
Tennesseer	60	-1.0
Sum Dum Gai	20	-0.4
billisonboard	50	-0.5
Virgil Seafaring	60	1.5
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	1.0
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	1.1
deminmaine	20	-0.4
ken a.k.a OMK	10	-0.2
workpublic	20	0.6
jkapp	20	0.6
RichardInTN	40	-0.1
Politically_Incorrect12   	10	0.2
jma 23	10	0.5
laterbloomer	20	-0.1
Tall Guy	20	-0.7
dondub	40	-0.8
oped	30	-0.5

Here is my list. The ratings are my own biased opinions of course as they are for the poster who created the initial ratings chart.

As the original ratings were based simply upon personal opinion, bias, spiritual beliefs, their definition of equality and justice for all, along with how often posters post on the political forums (CE and Politics) but not always on the actual content of their post(s)-just that they posted something on a thread, so shall be mine. I changed the 'Leaning' from a minus one and a plus one to a minus two and a plus two because a one was just not enough for several of the posters. I even changed my rating and moved it up (down?).

If Current Events is a political forum as the author of the original chart states, then it should be eliminated because any and all events in the news must be political in nature.

[Value Buy]

Jan 29, 2015 3:37:15 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

I am so perfectly centered I didn't make the chart.

You do seem sort of harmless here.

Pick a side!

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The current POTUS, ladies and gentlemen:

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Centrist: Lukewarm conservative or liberal that lacks the courage of their convictions to state what they actually believe on an issue because they're either ill-informed on the issues and it's a way to sound 'smart' at cocktail parties, or they simply do not like conflict and/or have a need to please people.

[billisonboard]

"Ever wonder what Barack  Obama sounds like without Hollywood script writers? "

Human? 

[Opti]

Jan 29, 2015 10:34:08 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Centrist: Lukewarm conservative or liberal that lacks the courage of their convictions to state what they actually believe on an issue because they're either ill-informed on the issues and it's a way to sound 'smart' at cocktail parties, or they simply do not like conflict and/or have a need to please people.

You've used flavors of this before. Personally I think its a belief to pretend one is

more principled just because they hold less popular views than average. Does not

make it true.

People pleasers can take all sorts of position in the political spectrum and other

areas of life. Take drinking. I don't see people who won't drink alcohol at all as more

principled than those who will drink or even those who are alcoholics. Some women

don't drink during pregnancy because they think any alcohol is too much. Some don't

drink during pregnancy because society is hyper-aware and they don't want the abuse

if they have a drink here and there. Likewise some kids in college become borderline

alcoholics in college to fit in. Some have personal drink limits of one, two or three

drinks and some do not or go with the crowd.

The only way to know if someone lacks the courage of their convictions is to listen with

an open heart and mind. Most people fall in the middle on their beliefs. Its that bell curve

kind of thing.

[dondub]

Virgil,

"Balanced budgets and belt tightening are conservative" as are "commensurate cuts in spending".....right and nice theory. But after Reagan and the Bush duo that's a hard sell on the reality front. Neat buzzwords though.

[OldCoyote]

Jan 29, 2015 6:41:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Major Poster	Posting Frequency  	Leaning (-2 [Full-on Left] to +2 [Full-on Right])
djpolldancer	100	-0.4
swamp	10	-0.3
zibazinski	20	0.5
mmhmm	40	-0.4
SpaceCoastPaul	60	1.6
Tennesseer	60	-1.0
Sum Dum Gai	20	-0.4
billisonboard	50	-0.5
Virgil Seafaring	60	1.5
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	1.0
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	1.1
deminmaine	20	-0.4
ken a.k.a OMK	10	-0.2
workpublic	20	0.6
jkapp	20	0.6
RichardInTN	40	-0.1
Politically_Incorrect12   	10	0.2
jma 23	10	0.5
laterbloomer	20	-0.1
Tall Guy	20	-0.7
dondub	40	-0.8
oped	30	-0.5

Here is my list. The ratings are my own biased opinions of course as they are for the poster who created the initial ratings chart.

As the original ratings were based simply upon personal opinion, bias, spiritual beliefs, their definition of equality and justice for all, along with how often posters post on the political forums (CE and Politics) but not always on the actual content of their post(s)-just that they posted something on a thread, so shall be mine. I changed the 'Leaning' from a minus one and a plus one to a minus two and a plus two because a one was just not enough for several of the posters. I even changed my rating and moved it up (down?).

If Current Events is a political forum as the author of the original chart states, then it should be eliminated because any and all events in the news must be political in nature.

I didn't even make the list, that means that I'm dead center.

[Icelandic Woman]

I didn't make the list either Oldcoyote. LOL But I guess you wouldn't consider me a major poster and Tenn knows where I would fall on that scale.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 29, 2015 10:35:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

"Ever wonder what Barack  Obama sounds like without Hollywood script writers? "

Human? 

about 10x better than Bush WITH one?