# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![Muad\_Dib](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/35a633/32.png) [@Muad\_Dib](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muad_Dib)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/281 "2005-05-31T06:56:57Z")
In the end spite and ranting will draw so many away that I will be the only old-timer left. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/282 "2005-05-31T07:27:59Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Now, I don’t consider you a person of great discernment, to be frank. I’ve been wondering lately if the various times when you’ve thanked me or otherwise responded warmly to my insults were sarcasm on your part or simply because you didn’t understand the big words I used. If you’re getting upset about _this_ mild insult, I can only conclude that the much harsher ones must have flown right over your head. 🙂 Oh, come on now, **Exie** , I’m not all that upset. In fact, I’m not upset at all. I merely found your “disgust” and holier-than-thou attitude to be lacking in basis of fact and felt compelled to make the necessary correction. > [@Excalibre](#): > > It’s indeed not an implication that most Muslims are terrorists. So perhaps you don’t understand why I would find it so offensive. It’s offensive to me in large part because it’s so clearly untrue. If you examine the history of terrorism both in the U.S. and in the world as a whole, Muslims have not at all been overrepresented. Nice segue there, **Exie** , but we’re not talking about _history_, we’re talking about they way things are _now_! Or at least we were, until you decided to try to worm your way out of having to admit my statement regarding the pervasiveness of Muslim terrorists and terrorist groups was accurate. > [@Excalibre](#): > > Your comment is, in short, offensive because it’s so very false, and because it’s used to support things like unlawful detentions of law-abiding citizens, ineffective racial profiling, and so forth. And it’s downright dangerous to give into this line of thought (though people certainly have done so) since it makes things easier for the white terrorists - who, within the U.S. at least - no doubt outnumber the Muslim ones. My, my, my – you do go on, don’t you? I certainly don’t use it to support such things! I’m merely making a statement of fact. You and anyone else can make of it what you will, but whether they use to support negative actions by the U.S. or you use it to claim the danger they will, it changes nothing with regard to the fact that what I’ve said is indeed fact. (You might want to consider a career as a mainstream journalist, however, as it is much in favor of suppressing perfectly obvious facts in an effort to keep people from becoming cognizant of facts that might tend to persuade them in the direction the media doesn’t want them to go.) The problem isn’t the fact that I claim Muslim terrorism is so widespread, it’s the fact that Muslim terrorism _is_ so widespread! > [@Excalibre](#): > > If you are so ignorant of history and of world events to forget every other terrorist attack that preceded 9/11, I’m not quite sure how we can discuss it. It shocks me that you continue to argue this point (without evidence, I might add, even though evidence to the contrary has been offered) when you consider the rich history of terrorism by white Christians. The IRA and ETA spring to my mind immediately - should one conclude based upon the _hundreds_ of attacks perpetrated by those groups that most terrorism should be attributed to Catholics? Again, what the hell does any of this have to do with the price of tea in China. We are discussing the prevalence of Islamic terrorism throughout the world, or at least we were until you decided to change horses in midstream and try to make this a history lesson. > [@Excalibre](#): > > It may be obvious to you, but it is _wrong_ - I don’t deny that extremist Muslim groups have resorted to terrorism, especially within Israel. I don’t deny that 9/11 was an attack that was amazingly destructive and violent. However, you must be operating in abject ignorance of world events if you don’t know about the many other acts of terrorism perpetrated by others. And you must be operating in a massive mental fog if you can’t separate my comments about the pervasiveness of Muslim terrorists vs. whatever else has gone on the world in regard to other terrorist acts. In the first place, they’ve done a hell of a lot more than create problems in Israel and the 9/11 attack. A hell of a lot more. And secondly, how does my comment illustrating the widespread terrorist activity on the part of Muslim terrorists mean I don’t know about the many other acts of terrorism perpetrated by others? What a stupid thing to say! If I’m concerned about the effect of the tsunami does it mean I know nothing about tornadoes in the U.S.? If I’m worried about heart disease does it mean, ipso facto, that I know nothing about the problems associated with obesity? Of course it doesn’t, and you know it! Frankly, you’re appear to be grasping at straws. > [@Excalibre](#): > > Nor would I expect it to - I have not known you to be swayed by logic or fact in the past… Translation: "I have not known you to decide you were wrong and I am right despite my many protestations that this is so, therefore you are a stubborn, ignorant fool who can only be redeemed by adopting and following this mantra: “You are right, Excalibre! You are right, Excalibre! You are right, Excalibre!” > [@Excalibre](#): > > I would say, though, that while being impervious to assault in a boxing ring is considered a virtue and a sign of strength, being impervious to reason in an argument is not. 🙂 As you are showing by your own example, my friend. (Yes, the "friend’ part is a whoosh!) :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/283 "2005-05-31T07:55:21Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > At the risk of losing the respect you mention here, **Starving Artist** , (I’ve noticed that people who talk too much about their “respect” for others seem to offer it pretty conditionally - I haven’t seen you you offer it out to those who don’t like and defend you) Are you nuts??? I offered it to _you_, and _you_ certainly haven’t liked or defended me! And I’ve offered it to many others who haven’t necessarily liked or defended me at the time I offered it, though we may have become friends since then. But the thing is, I speak out of fact, remember…not out of an attempt to manipulate the person I’m speaking to (as appears to be the case with you). If I respect somebody, I say so regardless of their feelings about me. If I don’t respect them, I don’t offer it no matter how much they may like me. It’s about the facts, remember? – it’s all about the facts! And the fact of the matter is, I’m quite happy to retract both the compliments and the respect I offered you as they were clearly misplaced. > [@Excalibre](#): > > I’m willing to explain why what I said about you in the quoted portion above was not a compliment, and why your quoted response seemed rather, well, odd to me. Unless it was a whoosh, in which case I must congratulate you on your deadpan response. Yes, I remember once a couple of months ago when you weren’t able to tell whether you were being whooshed by something I said in response to one of your inanities. I think I’ll just keep you guessing. It’s such fun watching you try to figure things out. > [@Excalibre](#): > > Like I said, if the big words are a problem, I’ll make an effort to use shorter ones with you in the future. Oh, that’s okay…I can probably keep up. :rolleyes: Just try to use a little (genuine) logic and to stay on topic instead of veering off into history lessons that pertain to nothing regarding the argument at hand, m’kay? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/284 "2005-05-31T14:04:26Z")
**John Mace:** > [@](#): > > Can you give an example of someone who often gets lumped into the “liberal/lefty” camp but who is a strong free market type? Someone who favors a market appoach to social problems instead of a gov’t approach? …Bill Clinton and the rest of the [Democratic Leadership Council](http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893)? > [@](#): > > [T]he DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non bureaucratic, market-based solutions. . . . Since its inception, the DLC has championed policies from spurring private sector economic growth, fiscal discipline and community policing to work based welfare reform, expanded international trade, and national service. Are they liberal/lefty, John? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/285 "2005-05-31T17:24:47Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Nice segue there, **Exie** , but we’re not talking about _history_, we’re talking about they way things are _now_! Or at least we were, until you decided to try to worm your way out of having to admit my statement regarding the pervasiveness of Muslim terrorists and terrorist groups was accurate. What’s the cut-off point between “history” and “now,” in your estimation? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/286 "2005-05-31T19:01:57Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > What’s the cut-off point between “history” and “now,” in your estimation? Into semantic hair-splitting today, are we? And even more to the point, what possible difference does it make? I offered a challenge earlier in this thread asking if anyone could point to a terrorist group with more members and which was more widespread throughout the world, and as usual no one has come up with anything other than the usual protestations of bigotry on my part. If I’m wrong, point to another group of terrorists with more members and which is more widespread throughout the globe. If not, then concede the fact that even though you don’t like it, it’s true that Muslim terrorists are both the largest in number and the most pervasive throughout the world. The point is that this is a fact. How is it to be dealt with if we are afraid even to acknowledge it? It is all well and good to try to eliminate bias and prejudice from your life, but not to the point that you deny obvious facts – and extremely dangerous ones at that. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/287 "2005-05-31T19:18:54Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I offered a challenge earlier in this thread asking if anyone could point to a terrorist group with more members and which was more widespread throughout the world, and as usual no one has come up with anything other than the usual protestations of bigotry on my part. > > If I’m wrong, point to another group of terrorists with more members and which is more widespread throughout the globe. This is where the problem lies, **SA**. From your phrasing here, it appears that you are classifying Muslim terrorists as **one group**. As “ **a** terrorist group”. Fact is, there are a multitude of different terrorist groups whose membership is wholly or mostly Muslim, whose ideology is more or less based on fundamentalist Islamic tenets, but who are entirely separate organizations. There were a lot of radical-socialist groups running loose in various parts of the globe a few decades ago. They all claimed to be followers of Marx and Lenin. Were they all really one terrorist group? Nope, they were home-grown rebels reacting to perceived injustices in their own particular corner of the globe, drawing upon concepts inherent in the Marxist-Leninist ideology to support their individual struggle, offering a loose confederacy of aid and comfort at times to co-ideologues, but by no means operating under a single command structure. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/288 "2005-05-31T19:57:29Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So are many of the “liberal” posters (closer to libertarian in their politics). > [@John Mace](#): > > Really? Can you give an example of someone who often gets lumped into the “liberal/lefty” camp but who is a strong free market type? Someone who favors a market appoach to social problems instead of a gov’t approach? > [@Gadarene](#): > > **John Mace:** > …Bill Clinton and the rest of the [Democratic Leadership Council](http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893)? > > Are they liberal/lefty, John? Wow, Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council post on the SDMB? Far out. Ya gotta wonder, though - if they were paying attention to business maybe the party would be in better shape. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/289 "2005-05-31T20:12:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Wow, Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council post on the SDMB? Far out. Heh. But I posted that to show, **Jack** , that social libertarianism combined with free market capitalism is representative of the mainstream of the Democratic Party. (Note the founders, members, and past presidents of the DLC, and it’s like a roll call of the Democratic stars of the last fifteen years.) **John** was saying that many of the conservatives here are more properly characterized as libertarian, but that many of the liberals aren’t – and asked, as a litmus test, that **tom~** name a poster who is considered liberal but is a free market type. I’m saying that by **John’s** standard, the Democratic mainstream is more properly considered libertarian rather than liberal…thus invalidating his previous objection to the board’s centrism, reprinted below. 🙂 > [@](#): > > And what does “centrist” mean? An equal amount on either side? I think you need to look at the std dev as well as the mean. I suspect the std dev is larger than what you’d find in general. And the lack of true social conservatives would make the mean different as well. > > Also, this board has a disproportionate number of libertarians. Many of the “conservative” posters here are closer to libertarian in their politics. > > In short, I don’t think the term “centrist” makes sense as a descrptive of the politics found on this board. Oh, and one more thing. **Jackmannii:** > [@](#): > > Ya gotta wonder, though - if they were paying attention to business maybe the party would be in better shape. Many liberals would argue that the party is in the shape it’s in because Clinton and the rest of the DLC gang paid too _much_ attention to business. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/290 "2005-05-31T21:09:28Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > This is where the problem lies, **SA**. From your phrasing here, it appears that you are classifying Muslim terrorists as **one group**. As “ **a** terrorist group”. Fact is, there are a multitude of different terrorist groups whose membership is wholly or mostly Muslim, whose ideology is more or less based on fundamentalist Islamic tenets, but who are entirely separate organizations. Yes, I know that, **ETA**. That’s why I’ve been speaking in terms of global proliferation and numbers of members, and I’ve tried to avoid phrasing that would make it sound like they were a singular unit. And I’ve been pretty successful up until the comment above. However, there are even factions within factions within factions, and I believe that if we get bogged down in trying to be surgically precise about every comment we make, we won’t ever get beyond that. And besides, there are certain common denominators that qualify them as a group in my opinion: They are all Muslim-based and Muslim-oriented (I know you know the difference, but **Excalibre** may not 😉 ), they are intolerant of faiths and lifestyles not their own, and they all employ the use of terrorism – particularly against innocent people not their enemies – to try to acheive their ends. I refer to them as a group based upon those common denominators. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/291 "2005-05-31T21:34:59Z")
So what do we do with this morsel of intelligence, **SA**? You are pains to convince us that this is the most mundane and obvious of facts, what use do you propose we make of it? Have you alerted the media? ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/292 "2005-05-31T21:38:33Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > there are certain common denominators that qualify them as a group in my opinion: They are all **Marxist-Leninist** -based and **Marxist-Leninist** -oriented (I know you know the difference, but **Excalibre** may not 😉 ), they are intolerant of **political systems** and **economic principles** not their own, and they all employ the use of terrorism – particularly against innocent people not their enemies – to try to acheive their ends. I refer to them as a group based upon those common denominators. You see, I can use your own definition to refute you. The Sandinistas were not the Baader-Meinhof Gang were not Shining Path were not the Khmer Rouge were not… and so on. Or do you believe that every Marxist-Leninist terror organization was/is part of one group? I’d argue that it is in fact important to parse out the particular grievances/rationales of particular groups so as to devise strategies and tactics to negate their popular support – and no terrorist group can survive without some degree of popular support. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/293 "2005-05-31T21:52:06Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Into semantic hair-splitting today, are we? And even more to the point, what possible difference does it make? Semantic? What on Earth is “semantic” about the difference between “now” and “then”? And as for what possible difference it could make, I personally would say “none.” You’re the one who’s suggested some arbitrary and undefined difference between current terrorism and historical terrorism. You tell me what difference it makes, because I certainly don’t see one. But for the purposes of this discussion, it would be helpful to know if you’re going to ignore any cites for terrorism before a certain **SA** -defined time frame before anyone wastes their time digging them up. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/294 "2005-05-31T22:01:55Z")
You aren’t supposed to do anything with it, **luci** …and on preview, **Miller**. If you’ll recall, **rjung** brought it up from an old thread in an effort to prove that “righties” here think 99.9999% of Muslims are terrorists. I’ve merely been trying to set the record straight and defend myself from the further misrepresentations that have occurred in this thread. **ETF** , sorry, but I think most people not wanting to get bogged down in semantics will get my point. The fact of the matter, once again, is that Muslim terrorism is the greatest terrorist threat, by far, that exists in the world at this point in time. I don’t see what good is accomplished by trying to take into account the particular goals and grievances of each individual faction, just as communism, in toto, was considered our enemy (and the enemy of the many countries that fell to its tanks and armies) during the cold war. I don’t recall a great deal of effort made in those days to single out this faction or that. It’s the same here. Muslim terrorism, in any and all of its various incarnations, is the problem. (Btw, I apparently thought you had changed your name to **EddyTeddyAndy**. My apologies. :smack: ) ---
**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 31, 2005, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/295 "2005-05-31T23:47:13Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > **John Mace:** > …Bill Clinton and the rest of the [Democratic Leadership Council](http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893)? > > Are they liberal/lefty, John? No, but they neither post here nor could they be considered libertarian. That’s what we were talking about. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/296 "2005-06-01T00:03:55Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > If you’ll recall, **rjung** brought it up from an old thread in an effort to prove that “righties” here think 99.9999% of Muslims are terrorists. No, I was merely demonstrating that righties on the SDMB will throw out outrageously incindiary things with nary a second thought – stuff that makes “Conservatives hate the truth” look like a love-tap by comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/297 "2005-06-01T12:14:56Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > It’s easy - just start asking questions designed to play into the biases of Democrats. For example, ask a bunch of Democrats what the average profit to earnings ratio is for American companies. Ask them what the average CEO compensation is compared to revenues. Ask them how much money could be saved by cutting CEO salaries. > > Ask them what the average educational level is for Republicans vs Democrats. Or in the military. Ask them how many people in the U.S. live below the median world income. Ask them how many people over the age of 25 work for minimum wage. Ask them how many people die each year because of DDT. Ask them about whether arsenic levels in the water are better or worse than they were ten years ago. Ask them if federal funding for stem cells has gone up or down under Bush. Jeez, I could go on forever. 1/ Your position is based on assumptions. It would all be a whole lot more impressive if you could come up with any actual study and you and other conservatives would have if you could have by now. 2/ Even assuming you are right that liberals would get wrong answers on the issues you raise, it doesn’t meet the issue as relevant to this thread. The issues you suggest liberals would be ignorant of are pissy little things in terms of what looms large in current political chatter. Contrastingly, the PIPA study’s key findings are about the Iraq war and the reasons for going into it, which looms very large. 3/ The PIPA study’s findings are that many 'Pubbies think certain things were important considerations in the decision to go to war, agree that the Bush administration is saying certain things about those considerations but are ignorant of the fact that what they are being told is wrong. 4/ That is a demonstrative and arguably representative example which is important to the OP because if myself and many others are right, the reason the boards are dominated by lefties at the moment is because it is a very hard time to be a thinking conservative: on at least one very large policy issue Bush is peddling ignorance (the antithesis of the ethos of these boards) and many 'Pubbies are lapping it up. This gives lefties something prominent to righteously jeer about to which thinking 'Pubbies have no good comeback. 5/ To demonstrate my point in reverse, IF there was a Dems leader who was garnering support for major policy by peddling ignorance, and IF that ignorance played into the biases of lefties such that they lapped it up then these boards would probably become a hard place to show your face as a thinking lefty. Not because these boards would be skewing right, but because the lefties would be saddled with a putative leader who was an ignorance peddling asshole. > [@](#): > > Both sides have biases. As a result, both sides have distorted opinions about what the facts are. Write a test that plays to those prejudices, and you can ‘prove’ that either side is stupid. > > Then there’s bias in judging the answers. Unless we’re talking hard sciences, most answers to these questions are at least somewhat fuzzy. There may be an orthodoxy, but then again, there may be one on the left, and a different one on the right. By judging the answers against one and not the other, at least to some degree, you can make an answer look worse than it is (I’m not saying this particular quiz did that). If you’re not saying this particular quiz did what you describe, then what’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/298 "2005-06-01T15:13:07Z")
> [@](#): > > just as communism, in toto, was considered our enemy (and the enemy of the many countries that fell to its tanks and armies) during the cold war. I don’t recall a great deal of effort made in those days to single out this faction or that. Interestingly, I have long maintained (and have posted it on these boards) that “communism” was never the enemy, but only the bogeyman used to whip up mindless support in our (legitimate) power struggle with the Soviet Union. Miilions of people were killed and enslaved by our allies and quite a few legitimate democratic movements were suppressed in the name of “fighting communism” when we should have been opposing Soviet aggression and supporting democracy regardless where it bloomed. We are now repeating the same errors with the “War on Terror” by creating bogeymen (and supporting oppressive governments) when we think that we can get some short term benefit in one fight or another while we breed the next generation of people who will threaten us. When we declaim “Muslim terrorism” we create an environment in which disparate bands of political agitators can draw together in mutual support based on the fact that we have already lumped them together, so the Filipino dissident and the Uzbeki dissident, who initially looked on themselves as simply fighting Manila or Tashkent, now look around to see themselves as a world-wide brotherhood struggling against The (Christian, Secular) West. Now, some of that “brotherhood” or comon cause had existed in the 1990s, but by reifying it in our speeches and our public proclamations and especially our political alliances, we give it a reality that did not exist before and make it easier (for example) for Arabs to recruit Indonesians to their cause. I find it interesting, for example how many hot spots in the world that are currently under “siege” from “Muslim terrorists” were under siege from “Communists” just a few yeas ago. I suspect that most of those places have an ongoing internal power struggle that continues through the decades specifically because we keep finding excuses to champion one side or the other in the name of fighting world wide plagues rather than working to find a just settlement among the fighters that would let the next generation grow up in peace. (I found it interesting among the obituaries and restrospectives on George Kennan, when he died a few weeks ago, that my positions were very close to those of the “Architect of the Cold War” who, having formulated the initial position of _containment_, had to spend the next 50 years railing futilely against successive administrations who kept giving lip service to “containment” while continuing to support wars and dictators in complete contradiction to Kennan’s plan.) ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/299 "2005-06-01T15:39:39Z")
> [@](#): > > No, but they neither post here nor could they be considered libertarian. That’s what we were talking about. …But they are social libertarians who are big fans of the free market. I thought _that’s_ what we were talking about. ---
**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:** [June 1, 2005, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457/300 "2005-06-01T15:54:18Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > I thought _that’s_ what we were talking about. This is what we were talking about (emphasis added): > [@John Mace](#): > > Many of the “conservative” posters here are closer to libertarian in their politics. > [@tomndebb](#): > > So are many of the “liberal” posters. > [@](#): > > Really? Can you give an example of someone who often gets lumped into the “liberal/lefty” camp but who is a strong free market type? Someone who favors a market appoach to social problems instead of a gov’t approach? The only person who comes to mind for me is **Apos** , who, IIRC, self describes as libertarian, although I haven’t encountered him much in economic debates. In that context of that exchange, and my example of **Apos** , it should be clear that “someone” means “someone who posts on the SDMB”. Not to mention the subject of this thread being the political leanings of the SDMB posters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-does-the-board-skew-left/305457.md?page=16)