Democratic Underground?
It’s Turtles all the way down
See the Doonesbury strip of 11 March 2012 (and the week of 6-11 February), describing a (fictional, of course) business called MyFacts that offers emerging definitions that align with their clients’ emotional needs.
Took a look at Democratic Underground, which I’d honestly never heard of before. I do see what you’re saying now.
I know about Free Republic, but I’d rather not go there, since my day has been bad enough as it is.
I’ll second the sentiment stated above: Snopes is liberal only to the extent that a lot of right wing spammers are liars.
Snopes has been around since 1995. This is the first accusation that I’ve heard of their having a liberal bias.
You doubt the Reds are taking over? Maybe you’re a Red!
Back in the '50s, the John Birch Society thought Eisenhower was a Communist. (As you can read in Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, by Rick Perlstein.)
A quick view at the “Politics” section of snopes reveals subcategories for George Bush, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Rick Santorum, John Kerry, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitt Romney. An even quicker look at a few of those subcategories indicate trues and falses in almost every category.
It appears to me that snopes is an equal-opportunity myth-destroyer, and its conservative critics don’t like that because…I dunno. All conservative myths about liberal politicians must always be true, while liberal myths about conservatives must always be false?
I think it definitely does - and I count myself as a progressive (with a lower case p). That’s one of the great things about StraightDope - I see almost no politicization of issues that are fact-oriented.
:dubious:
I take it that you have never participated in intelligent design/creationist vs evolution, climate change threads uh? 
It should not be, but sadly; in America at least, those fact oriented subjects are politicized.
Where do you see that on Snopes?
Don’t think so. Just the other day I saw it confirming the truth of a story about a Bain employee thanking Mitt Romney for helping to save his daughter’s life.
Technically, it was Robert Welch in his book The Politician who made that claim. When I was a member in the 1980s, it was understood within the JBS that one could be a member without buying into that.
No, some posters try to politicize these issues on this board, and the majority of replies are not “You’re wrong because you’re a bourgeois dinosaur” (or similar label-rhetoric) but “You’re wrong because of <cited fact 1> and <cited fact 2> etc.”.
The American angle (though it is not exclusive to them, of course) is that fact-citing gets less traction than it should, and to some is even a negative: “Oh, I dunno what your east-coast liberal college taught you, but in the real America…” as though there existed a portion of America that was immune to science by virtual of being more “real” than science can handle.
The board members who are determinedly immune to fact-based arguments on specific issues get reputations as such, and are quite fortunately in the minority.
A couple of years ago I read a piece on the BBC website about this. It was asking why so many low-income Americans were so against Obama’s healthcare policies (to the point of hatred) when they were the ones set to gain the most from it. Essentially the conclusion was that a lot of people prefer “stories” to facts, and they feel talked down to when someone comes up with statistics saying how much better something is. In the end a lot of people prefer anecdotal evidence to hard facts, and the right tends to be better at catering to those people. I can’t help but think if we could change this the world would be a much, much better place.
IMHO, extremists of all types tend, by the very nature of extremism, to be less…fact-oriented that moderates.
Given this as a general rule, it’s pretty easy to see that, in a mostly-conservative country like the US, the most fact-averse crazies are going to be the conservatives.
I would guess, without loads of proof at hand, that, in Communist countries, the opposite is true.
I think that rates of violence among the two extremes in a given country are also pretty indicative of which way that country leans, politically. In the US, the more violent political group tends to be the conservatives. As we can see from the former USSR and China, the most violent people in those countries were generally the opposite.
Or, as Mark Twain said, “When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to stop and reconsider.”
I’d say the reason that most poor whites are against it is because they feel that African-Americans have disproportionately benefited from welfare, and they think this is more of the same. I think the main reason that poor whites are so against helping African-Americans is that poor whites tend to, on average, have less education, and uneducated people tend to be more racist, on average.
I really don’t think that poor blacks are particularly against nationalized healthcare.
ISTM that they have a slight liberal bias in that allegations which are partially true are labeled as false when they are about Obama, and labeled as partially true when they are about others.
But I could be wrong - it’s a slight lean and it’s a subjective matter.
[But I should also note that the fact that the Mikkelsons are not active in politics (or American, in the case of Barbara) doesn’t mean that they don’t hold opinions about polical matters.]
Yeah, reality has a liberal bias, so there you go