# So does the board skew left? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 25, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457 "2005-05-25T17:23:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/181 "2005-05-26T19:10:42Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Thank you for reminding us, lest we forget, that a good number of conservatives really are just morons who are full of shit. It’s not a trait confined strictly to leftist ideologues. Trying to fill the gap left by **milroyj** , eh **Martin Hyde**? No, not really. Just reading through this thread I decided to spew out a Conservative version of the bullshit liberal trolling I see in many threads I post in. I have to admit it’s a very easy method to employ, I put almost no thought into a post and it gets the exact reaction I wanted without fail. It’s easy to troll, and I felt like I it was time to give a little turnabout is fair play since typically when I’m posting in a thread and someone starts resorting to inane Bushism and such I just ignore them. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/182 "2005-05-26T19:21:34Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Conservatism means a careful and deliberate approach to change. It means weighing the consequences before making or changing law. Conservatism means believing in minimal government interference in peoples private lives and business. If anything, the curent administration is extreme rabid liberal, making sweeping changes with no idea how they will pan out (Patriot Act, Social Security overhaul, National Security Personnel System, national ID cards, etc). I somewhat disagree. I don’t think conservatism, as it has been definited in America for most of its history, includes “minimal government interference in people’s private lives.” At least not Republican conservatism. That’s more a Libertarian value. I’m a pretty ardent liberal/libertarian. I’m very liberal on social issues, but I’m not completely laissez-faire on economic issues. I’m for free market capitalism, but with some government restraint and safeguards. Plus I support a basic form of nationalized healthcare. Therefore, I sort of straddle the liberal and libertarian ideology. I don’t despise Conservatives. I don’t despise traditional Republican ideology. But what I do hate is this George Bush, Jr. brand of neo-Conservatism. It’s not, in my opinion, reflective of traditional Republican values. It is not fiscally conservative by any stretch of the imagination. It is not about smaller government. It is not about keeping its nose out of your business. And this is what pisses me off. If the Republican Party got back to this ideology, I might actually respect it. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/183 "2005-05-26T19:44:48Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > You know, **rjung** , if all you care about is the truth, well, doesn’t the truth come out in open debate? Doesn’t reasoned discussion usually vindicate the person who was right all along? So when the actions of people like you _prevent_ that debate by making folks like **Bricker** or **Sam Stone** sigh and ignore you instead of discussing things with you, all you’re doing is making it harder for the truth to get out. That’s a silly argument. If I wrote a rant about how the Bush Administration is a bunch of evil bastards because they [played up the myth of Pat Tillman and subsequently lied about the causes of his death, including deceiving his family and destroying evidence to uphold the myth,](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200865.html) the facts of the case are not dependent on how many Bush apologists show up to refute the charges. Truth _can_ come out in open debate, but that’s certainly not the only venue for it. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/184 "2005-05-26T19:49:22Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > There are true conservatives here. Airman Doors is one. I respect him. He is conservative, but is not an unreasoning party hack. He is a thinking conservative. If we’re making a(nother) list, put **PatriotX** on there as well. He doesn’t seem to be around nowadays as much as he used to be, but the guy’s got a good head on his shoulders. > [@SteveG1](#): > > There are many others, such as Starving Artist. Well, let’s not get _too_ crazy here… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/185 "2005-05-26T19:57:09Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > If we’re making a(nother) list, put **PatriotX** on there as well. He doesn’t seem to be around nowadays as much as he used to be, but the guy’s got a good head on his shoulders. > Well, let’s not get _too_ crazy here… 😉 OK, PatriotX is on the list. As for SA, believe it or not, he and I have actually agreed on several things in the past, and may do so again. When we disagreed, it stayed fairly civil. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/186 "2005-05-26T19:59:28Z")
> [@](#): > > If I wrote a rant about how the Bush Administration is a bunch of evil bastards because they … You would be demonstrating a definite bias that looks for enemies before it looks for truth. So far, there is no evidence that anyone in the Administration knew anything about the “real” details of Tillman’s death at any time before the Army revealed it to the Tillman family. The evidence so far points to a battlefield screw-up and cover-up, the nature of which only slowly made it to the top echelons of the Army, where the initial cover-up was, at first, compounded and then slowly corrected. By leaping to the conclusion that the Bush Administration is a bunch of evil bastards because of the Tillman event, based on potentially erroneous information, you place youirself squarely among those who chose to leap to conclusions about Iraqi WMDs based on their hatred for Hussein. Now, it may turn out, some day, that Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz actually did know about and participate in the Tillman cover-up, **but there is not yet any evidence to support that claim**. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/187 "2005-05-26T20:21:07Z")
True as far as that goes, friend **Tomn**. But concurrent with that truth is the further truth that even were it true, you and I are most unlikely ever to find out. Deniability is a corrupt form of truth. I tend to agree with you, most likely the actual cover-up took place and remained at a very low level. Friendly fire deaths are radioactive anthrax, nobody in there right mind wants anything to do with them, including investigating. A captain who uncovers evidence implicating generals is contemplating a career in real estate. ---
**Author:** ![I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f08c70/32.png) [@I\_don\_t\_care\_about\_your\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_don_t_care_about_your_cat)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/188 "2005-05-26T20:46:25Z")
Can I just mention that using a bunch of over-the-top adjectives, usually reserved for _aural_ speech, to describe written speech, doesn’t help anyone’s case? I’m referring to things such as this: “Those shrill, whiny liberals, with their screeching shrillness, are always whining and screaming shrilly. Quit crying and whining, you shrill, screechy, screaming whiners.” I don’t know about everyone else, but this annoys me to no end. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/189 "2005-05-26T20:49:52Z")
Aural speech? Is that some kind of New Age speech? 🙂 Perhaps you meant oral speech, as opposed to written speech. But no, it doesn’t bother me at all. I think it’s an accurate descripition of some writing. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/190 "2005-05-26T21:19:45Z")
> [@](#): > > But concurrent with that truth is the further truth that even were it true, you and I are most unlikely ever to find out. Deniability is a corrupt form of truth. Regardless of our ability or likelihood of discovering the truth, the issue addressed was different. Criticism has been lodged at some posters, **rjung** clearly among them, that they are willing to go to any extreme to paint the members of the Bush Administration as evil. As an event in that discussion, **rjung** did, indeed, post a hypothetical which pretty much demonstrated the point made by those who have offered criticism. Aside from the “they got us into this” argument (which is not going to persuade me, since I oppose the Iraqi debacle but supported the initial efforts in Afghanistan where Tillman died), there is no linkage between the Administration and the Tillman cover-up. Beyond that, there has never been any reliable speculation linking the Adminstration to the cover-up. _All_ the evidence, so far, indicates that this is an internal problem in the Army. So when **rjung** makes a charge (even a hypothetical one) that “_the Bush Administration is a bunch of evil bastards because they played up the myth of Pat Tillman and subsequently lied about the causes of his death, including deceiving his family and destroying evidence to uphold the myth,_” then that falls into exactly the sort of “mindless Bush bashing” that prompted the criticism. I do not share the general disdain for **rjung** ’s posts that has been displayed in these threads. There really are not that many posters (left, right, center, religious, atheist, straight, gay, Fundamentalist Christian, skeptic, pick-your-oppressive-or-oppressed group) whom I hold in actual contempt, regardless of their beliefs or their posting styles. But I do think that if one is being criticzed for a particular approach to posting, it is better not to demonstrate exactly the problems of which one has been accused as some sort of _defense_. * * * Aural vs oral: oral _might_ have been a better choice, but I think a case can be made that since the descriptions are based on what people _read_ in order to take umbrage, using what they _would have heard_ ([aural](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aural)) can be defended. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/191 "2005-05-26T21:36:44Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I somewhat disagree. I don’t think conservatism, as it has been definited in America for most of its history, includes “minimal government interference in people’s private lives.” At least not Republican conservatism. That’s more a Libertarian value. I would disagree. I think it’s definitely a new situation we’ve found ourselves in - the Republican Party as a champion of a fringe religious movement and the unthinking ally of Big Business. A lot of the anti-liberty sentiment in the GOP is a direct consequence of their newfound power-base’s societal power-grab. The post-Reagan GOP is certainly not conservative, but the GOP was moreso before that. Of course, go back a few decades earlier and politics was framed around other issues, and it didn’t fit neatly into conservative-liberal at that point either. > [@pulykamell](#): > > I’m a pretty ardent liberal/libertarian. I’m very liberal on social issues, but I’m not completely laissez-faire on economic issues. I’m for free market capitalism, but with some government restraint and safeguards. Plus I support a basic form of nationalized healthcare. Therefore, I sort of straddle the liberal and libertarian ideology. I would say that you actually sound pretty much liberal here - you support regulation of Big Business, while libertarianism definitely proposes to remove present safeguards on it. And nationalized healthcare is certainly contrary to libertarian principles. Social liberalism is the province of the left as well as the libertarians (though it seems more and more that neither major party really believes in this idea - Democrats unfortunately have been surprisingly frequent supporters of grandstanding about the dangers of the wrong kind of music and suchlike.) > [@pulykamell](#): > > I don’t despise Conservatives. I don’t despise traditional Republican ideology. But what I do hate is this George Bush, Jr. brand of neo-Conservatism. It’s not, in my opinion, reflective of traditional Republican values. It is not fiscally conservative by any stretch of the imagination. It is not about smaller government. It is not about keeping its nose out of your business. And this is what pisses me off. If the Republican Party got back to this ideology, I might actually respect it. I’ve been told by my parents that it used to be seriously worth considering voting for Republicans. I am too young to remember this era, but that’s pretty striking coming from my folks, who are pretty liberal and particularly opposed to the social conservatism that has blossomed so much in the Republican party in the last few years. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/192 "2005-05-26T21:46:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So when **rjung** makes a charge (even a hypothetical one) that “_the Bush Administration is a bunch of evil bastards because they played up the myth of Pat Tillman and subsequently lied about the causes of his death, including deceiving his family and destroying evidence to uphold the myth,_” then that falls into exactly the sort of “mindless Bush bashing” that prompted the criticism. It’s my “How to write better” assignment for the day, “Exaggerating for effect” (#22 in a series). As for the Pat Tillman thing, while I agree that we don’t know at what level the cover-up was authorized at, I find it interesting that there doesn’t seem to be any sort of effort by the Bush Administration to investigate _why_ there was a cover-up at all. Especially since GWB himself wasn’t shy about embracing the Tillman myth before the fit hit the shan: > [@](#): > > Mary Tillman says the government used her son for weeks after his death, perpetuating an untrue story to capitalize on his altruism – just as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was erupting publicly. She said she was particularly offended when **President Bush offered a taped memorial message to Tillman at a Cardinals football game shortly before the presidential election** last fall. She again felt as though her son was being used, something he never would have wanted. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/193 "2005-05-26T22:04:20Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > No, not really. Just reading through this thread I decided to spew out a Conservative version of the bullshit liberal trolling I see in many threads I post in. I have to admit it’s a very easy method to employ, I put almost no thought into a post and it gets the exact reaction I wanted without fail. It’s easy to troll, and I felt like I it was time to give a little turnabout is fair play since typically when I’m posting in a thread and someone starts resorting to inane Bushism and such I just ignore them. **Martin Hyde** , deliberate trolling is not acceptable, even as a response to the perceived trolling of others. If you believe someone to be trolling, report the post. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/194 "2005-05-26T22:58:21Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > It’s my “How to write better” assignment for the day, “Exaggerating for effect” (#22 in a series)… Amongst the Cecilians, you might as well title that “Painting a Big Fat Target on Yer Ass So Some Smart-Ass Can Nail Ya!” I find it cumbersome and unwieldy, hence I never exaggerate for effect. I can’t really find a lot to blame here, save for marginal venality. The cover up no doubt started on the spot, who’s going to insist on telling an ugly truth that _nobody_ wants to hear? Especially when that “nobody” who doesn’t want to hear it is the people you depend on in moments of acute stress? I sure as hell wouldn’t, if I were where he was and wearing the same sort of boots. I very much doubt there was much discussion and conspiracy, the easy thing to do was to cover it up. The reason it was so difficult to uncover is the utter lack of enthusiasm for being seen as “not a team player”, but as a shit-disturber. Of course, exploiting such a death for political purposes sucks, but it wouldn’t hardly suck any less if he had died from enemy action. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/195 "2005-05-26T23:11:00Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > It’s my “How to write better” assignment for the day, “Exaggerating for effect” (#22 in a series). ~hops about~ Don’t _do_ that! If we’ve got any hope of discussion then we need to stick to the facts. If you just want to embellish until something bears only a passing isomorphism with reality, then you might as well yell at a wall. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/196 "2005-05-26T23:37:12Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > It’s my “How to write better” assignment for the day, “Exaggerating for effect” (#22 in a series). I don’t think your exaggerations are having quite the effect you think they have. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/197 "2005-05-27T00:11:20Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > If we’ve got any hope of discussion then we need to stick to the facts. That’s what the link is for. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > If you just want to embellish until something bears only a passing isomorphism with reality, then you might as well yell at a wall. Considering the context of my message was about a nonexistent hypothetical rant (and one clearly labelled as such), I hardly think it counts as anything resembling an attempt to deceive. Oh, and just to tie up a loose end: > [@Airman Doors](#): > > > [@rjung](#): > > > > Considering that the SDMB resident conservatives do toss out broadly inflammatory remarks about how liberals = traitors, or Muslims = terrorists, or feminists = lesbians, asking them to actually take some of the stuff they dish out hardly seems unreasonable. > > OK, I think you need to cite an example of each of those. “liberals = traitors”: > [@](#): > > As for liberals being traitors and me being full of shit, you are entitled to your opinion, and I’m entitled to mine. Liberals have loyalty oaths, lie detectors, drug testing and bans on flag burning for half a century, and they have even argued that Alger Hiss wasn’t a communist. Well if Whittaker Chambers, winner of the Medal of Freedom from the Great Ronald Reagan, denounces someone for being a commie, that is good enough for me. They fight all of these things because when combined, these methods of ensuring loyalty work! Druggies are liberals, and liberals don’t want to be tested. They recruit youngsters to take drugs to perpetuate their libertine lifestyle. The refuse lie detectors because they don’t want to be found out as liars! They oppose loyalty oaths because they are disloyal. > –[Taggert](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2279778&postcount=49) “Muslims = terrorists”: > [@](#): > > Okay, then…how about 99.9999999 % of terrorists are Muslim? For crying out loud! These people are causing chaos in countries all over the globe and there are _tens of thousands of them!_ Let’s not be so zealous in our aversion to stereotyping that we have such an open mind that our brains fall out. > –[Starving Artist](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4588670&postcount=3) “feminists = lesbians”: > [@](#): > > Take, for example, the list of program courses in the Women’s Studies program at Vassar. Do you think that courses like “Construction of Gender: Women in American Popular Media,” “Lesbian Sex & Politics in the US,” and “Brave New Families” are being taught apolitically? I doubt it. I have no evidence that they aren’t, but I know enough about academia to be skeptical that these courses are all taught from an emphatically left-wing perspective, and that students are taught that those political ideas are the correct ones. > –[pldennison](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2177624&postcount=42) And a few more, just to show off: > [@](#): > > Your first step, sven, is to absolutely forget everything that the (generally) enormously liberal facualty from college indoctrinated you with and go out and study on your own. You might be suprised as to what you learn. > –[Weirddave](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3609888&postcount=8) > [@](#): > > Ah, yes. Feminist academic tools. Does this mean that feminists have discovered advanced new ways of thinking? Approaches that eluded Einstein, Newton, Descartes, Bertrand Russell, Plato, Aristotle, Von Neumann, etc.? > > Or, does it it mean that feminists are indulging in a less advanced type of thinking? > –[december](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2180242&postcount=69) > [@](#): > > Democrats, you go to hell, you go to hell and you die!!! > –[Farmer](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=45608) ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/198 "2005-05-27T00:19:58Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > > [@rjung](#): > > > > It’s my “How to write better” assignment for the day, “Exaggerating for effect” (#22 in a series). > > I don’t think your exaggerations are having quite the effect you think they have. For once I completely agree with **Sam**. (Actually, this happens with some regularity, but it’s almost always in forums other than GD and the Pit.) ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/199 "2005-05-27T00:20:08Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > I would say that you actually sound pretty much liberal here - you support regulation of Big Business, while libertarianism definitely proposes to remove present safeguards on it. And nationalized healthcare is certainly contrary to libertarian principles. I don’t know. Whenever I take one of those political compass test, I’m always right on the cusp of liberal/libertarian, just on the libertarian side. I just think either economic extreme is ridiculous. I want a free and _fair_ economy. I don’t think simply removing government interference guarantees that. I think the economy can be stifled by unfair business practices as much as government, and I think a truly free and fair market is only possible in theory—just like socialism is—so I have to strike a compromise which gives free market enough room to operate fairly with minimal regulation. Personally, I’d be just as happy to live in a moderately socialist state as a moderately libertarian state. I know it may sound odd, but I could at least live with the difference of opinion on what a government’s role in society and the distribution of wealth should be. On the one hand, I don’t care if I pay 50% in taxes as long as I’m taken care of. On the other hand, I make enough money that I can take care of myself. I think the measure of a modern society is how well it takes care of its least fortunate members. On the other hand, I completely understand if you have a more every person for themselves mentality. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that either, but it’s easy for me to say as I don’t lose out in either scenario. This is why I’m wishy washy about my liberalism or libertarianism. Both political ideologies are reasonable to me. However, I do have a problem when government starts telling me what I can or cannot do in my bedroom, when it stifles scientific progress on so-called “moral” grounds, when it starts calling critics of the state traitors, etc… The social conservativeness of Republicans is the main reason I could never see myself voting for them. And we seem to forget that Republicans do have a history of social reform and welfare. The religious element of the right (which has always existed, although not with the fervor it does today) wanted to defend family and community against excesses of the free market. Lincoln emancipated the slaves (yes, I realize it’s more complex than this). Nixon created the FDA, the EPA, and the OSHA. It’s not like Republicans have always been die-hard literal laissez-faire capitalists. It’s not like they didn’t do their share of responsible social and environmental action. And, to me, it’s a pity and a shame what the Republican Party represents today. And I daresay the same about the Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/200 "2005-05-27T00:26:16Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > “Muslims = terrorists” Um, the example you gave wasn’t very good. **Starving Artist** was saying that 99.999% of terrorists are Muslims (an analysis I absolutely disagree with–part of it depends on whose definition of “terrorist” you’re using. Even so, have we forgotten about ETA, IRA, anti-abortion activists, etc…?) This does not mean that 99.999% of Muslims are terrorists. Basically, if you remember those logic puzzles, All A are B does not mean All B are A. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457.md?page=11)