That might be why he said mostly free… 
You approve of the American invasion of Iraq, and are anti abortion?
Roland:
#1 I give you: liberals like cats :).
However, the only items that seem to be liberal-centered issues that you take issue with are #3, #5, and #6.
I’ve never met anyone who wants restaurants to cut portion size and leave prices the same.
I’ve never met a liberal person who wants to outlaw thought crimes, unless it’s pedophilia.
I’ve never met a liberal person who believes Hawking is inherently superior to retarded kids. To Conservatives, perhaps 
And conservatives as well as liberals can make restrictive zoning and expropriation laws.
Definitely.
I see nothing in his 8 point post about Iraq.
As for abortion…I do not believe in abortion.
However my beliefs stop when I step on someone else’s life.
Yours don’t?
He says he approves of the invasion of Iraq in his first post. You did write that you agreed with everything Roland said.
Re abortion, my position is that I would do what I can to limit it - I don’t support abortion on demand. I would vote against it (abortion on demand) should there be a referendum on the issue, and I would (and do) explain why I don’t support it, and the circumstances in which I do support it.
Your comment about stepping on someone else’s life suggests that you consider only one person (the female) to be involved. I believe that the developing person in her body is also involved.
One must indeed be careful where one steps in such situations.
Atheist Right checkin’ in here, and I don’t think I’ve been particularly shy about stating such. And, I’m quite well assured that I am not by myself at the Dope.
You’re hardly alone in your affiliations here, Roland, although I’ll admit to thinking some of what you’ve revealed about your own life here strikes me as, well, a place I’d rather not be.
I have many friends who call themselves liberal, and I maintain friendships that focus outside the political arena where we often disagree. I look sadly upon the current panorama of political discourse, where any opposition position is presented as a wholly unreasonable attempt to kill your babies. ISTR a time when opposition positions were evaluated for the needs of the supporting constituencies and compromises were struck. Perhaps I see the past with rose colored glasses.
Anyway, I disagree with the unsupported head count; I’d guess it’s closer to 45-35-20.
Yes, I do on the whole support the invasion of Iraq because I believe that we were liberating people from a harsh, authoritarian regime. Some say in reply to this “well what about North Koria, Iran, China ect” in reply I say that if I had my way we would also liberate those nations as well. Unfortunately, we do not have the military power, or the political will to undertake those tasks. To me one of the most shameful tragedies that has befallen America of the last century was our failure to act in Rawanda. In fact, I believe that much if not most of the poverty, and starvation around the world can be direrctly attributed to the type of authoritarian regime that was present under Saddam. On the other hand I think that the left has a valid point in stating that Bush may have knowingly overstated, and or misrepresented our reasons for going to war (on the other hand I am something of a “true believer” in that I still think that there are WMD’s hidden away in Syria). I also believe that Saddams support of the terrorist activities against Israel were sufficient reason to consider him a terrorist.
Also, someone said that the Internet is bias to the left. I have always heard just the opposite that it is biased to the right (mainly because many lower income individuals have less access than higher income people). In fact, it never ceases to amaze me how many of those “AOL pop up polls” skew to the right on a variety of issues (the noted exception being during the campaign where they skewed towards Kerry, but it was reported that Kerry had a well mobilized Internet response team). The thing is that AOL is not noted for attracting conservatives and is thus probably more left leaning than many other Internet portals. Indeed, many of my conservative friends cringe at the idea that I would support the same organization that owns CNN.
Here’s one more thing about this board that is a conundrum to me. While the board seems to lean left on many issues on those involving “paranormal” it tends far to the skeptic side. I am often criticised at our church for being “too agnostic” , and yet here I feel like a guest preacher at a Billy Graham revival. In addition, I sometimes participate in a local “ghost investigation” group and out of about fifty members I am the lone Republican (and as a whole they make StraightDope seem like a Rush Limbaugh marathon special). Furthermore, they consider me a mostly closed, minded skeptic (even though I’m open to the paranormal I just believe that it must be subjected to the scientific method before it can be considered anything but hopeful conjecture). However, around here I feel like Miss Cleo extolling the virtues of my psychic powers for five dollars per minute. Again the point is that it is fairly unusual to see hard core skepticism, combined with often left leaning perspectives.
My impression re proportions of lefties/centrists/rightists is that GD is dominated by leftists, but that the fun fora are populated by something more of a representative cross-section of the (American) population.
Mods/Admin are very important in setting the tone of the threads on SDMB, and most of them are leftist, so far as I can tell. The same goes for the long-term posters whose influence is only mildly less than the Mods proper. Once any of these folks enter a debate, the potential for it to be wrenched back for the other side is, well, considerably reduced.
I see it as a necessary evil and a challenge, honing one’s guerrilla warfare skills.
I didn’t (don’t) support the war (I’m British and well to the right of Blair, whatever that means these days). You can “defeat” a bunch of armed non-lovers-of-freedom (they’re a pound a penny in Africa and Asia), but you’ll get another dprining up in their place and you’ll alienate the moderate population. How can invasions ever work (unless doen defensively, as for example in the 1991 Gulf War and in defence of one’s one borders)?
Could you explain what you mean giving examples perhaps? I don’t quite follow what you’re driving at but it sounds interesting.
How about ‘hate’ crimes? Canada is way to the left of the U.S., and yet we have numerous hate crimes laws here. And not just for violent acts. You can be charged with a ‘hate crime’ if, for example, you distribute propaganda that encourages ‘hatred’ of an identifiable group.
Let me briefly address what I mean with regard to the “gay” issue. In many places verbally stating the opinion in the context of a relevent conversation that you believe homosexual acts to be morally wrong is considered a bigoted position. In fact, when my Sociology class at Ball State University was addressed by Spectrum (the gay and lesbian student alliance) and I asked this very question they stated that they felt the campus policy against “hate speech” included expressing the opinion that homosexual acts were in any way not normal. Furthermore, it is my understanding that there have even been Canadian ministers that have faced fines, and or prosecution for spreading the message that homosexuality is wrong (perhaps someone can either provide examples of this or show where I am incorrect).
Note, that just because I think homosexuality is wrong doesn’t mean that I think that it is “more wrong” than many other “sins”. For example I believe that sexual infidelity or even “living together” is probably equally wrong (indeed many people consider my “marriage” which was done in a church without benefit of a license to be morally wrong. Note that I would die to defend their right to hold this position).
I like to think that even though the board has quantifiably fewer conservatives, we get a better quality of conservative. Theres little tolerance over here for creationism, fundamentalism, bigotry or many other beliefs that can’t be adequately supported in debate which alienates a lot of the conservative masses.
As a corrolory, I think that the standards towards left leaning members are a lot more lax which means that it’s a lot easier to not get confronted about your beliefs.
Also, let me clarify what I mean about the “paranormal”. It seems that when any question arises concerning ghosts, The afterlife, ESP, ect the overwhelming attitude is that it does not, cannot in any way have objective validity. My perspective is that it very well may, but that unless supported by serious scientific research it is simply conjecture. My point is that the sort of “hard core” skepticism that I see around here on these issues tends (in my everyday experience) to correlate with those on the right much more than those on the left. I suspect that it can be explained by an “academic” bias which leans left politically, and yet leans far to the “skeptic” side on these types of issues. I suppose when it gets right down to it that I am an agnostic who “chooses” to believe in God (but would never tell anyone else that they should believe as I except to point out my reasons for so believing).
Just a few quick comments regarding the OP:
First, I’m surprised that no one has yet mentioned John Mace or xtisme.
Second, I think the Political Compass threads (latest is here) have been quite helpful in illuminating the political position of the board. What comes out in these threads is that the board is very socially liberal, and somewhat economically liberal. IIRC, the scores generally ranged from about -8 to +1 on the social axis (I only remember seeing one poster with a score higher than +1), and about -8 to +8 on the economic axis. Looking at your responses Roland Deschain, I think you should fit pretty well into the conservative faction on this board.
Well, if you believe as I and many people do that homosexuality is not a choice but a biological fact, it’s kind of hard for us not to find that opinion bigoted. (For me, though, whether it is a choice or not is not an important issue.) But personally and spiritually, I just cannot possibly comprehend how any rational person can equate one’s hetero- or homosexuality with morality. So forgive me if I think the idea that “homosexuality is wrong” is a bigoted remark, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t think it was.
I really do not mean any offense. I just cannot personally rationalize any way else.
Xtisme is a good example of how labels fall apart in the SMDB… we get all sorts of leftist with libertarian or conservative with social concerns. Xtisme sometimes seems like a closet republican… in others issues anything but that.
I agree with the idea that we get some good quality right wingers… but then the survival rates means they go through a much tougher questioning and their numbers are smaller. Silly creationists or silly marxists don’t survive here.
Threads about understanding “right wing mentality” by Sam Stone (if I’m not mistaken) are great things to learn about the “enemy”.
As rjung said, there are some European posters here. And we actually have political parties with the words ‘Socialist’ and ‘Liberal’ in them. :eek:
So the US parties are seen here as centre/centre right and right-wing/ fundamentalist.
You posted:
"Note, that just because I think homosexuality is wrong doesn’t mean that I think that it is “more wrong” than many other “sins” ".
(From my viewpoint, calling homosexuality a sin means you are right-wing with a common US religious belief.)
“It seems that when any question arises concerning ghosts, The afterlife, ESP, ect the overwhelming attitude is that it does not, cannot in any way have objective validity.”
(Um, no. The sceptical attitude is that this is jolly interesting, but that we would like some proof.
No dowser has ever passed a test.
When Kabbalah claims to cure cancer by drinking water, why is there no scientific study to back it up?
Why are ghosts / UFO’s / Bigfeet so hard to find?
Why do psychics perform identically to cold-reading tricksters?)
“Yes, I do on the whole support the invasion of Iraq because I believe that we were liberating people from a harsh, authoritarian regime”
(Well you can believe that, but the stated purpose was to remove the WMD’s.
‘Regime change’ would have been illegal under international law anyway.
And why didn’t the US go in when Saddam gassed 50,000?
And who put him in power in the first place?
If I seem irritated, bear in mind that our political leaders told our Parliament that we had to follow the US into Iraq because:
- Saddam had WMD’s pointed at UK bases ready to use in 45 minutes
- he not only had WMD’s, but particularly nuclear weapons
- sanctions were not working)
Pardon, I was just trying to get you involved in the thread is all :smack:
(You are sort of conservative aren’t you? I get the impression anyway.)
[The grinny smiley guy with the apologetic look on its face.]
Actually, I go with whatever will seem to work, favoring Populist ideas, Fordist economics, & a basically pro-education liberal social policy.
Disgusting slime! We will destroy you ALL for such thoughts! BWAHAHAHAHA!