I posted a link a couple of posts up.
Ah, okay, it was purely an academic exercise in sociology. Well done. I’m curious how your thesis defense will go, of course.
Next time, you might want to actually read the report. If you did, you would recognize that it had nothing to do with “the errors” of the Bush administration, but was concerned with how well people understood the issues and policies, broken down by which presidential candidate they supported. Nice spin attempt, but sorry, the result are pretty clear. Bush supporters not only were significantly clueless about the big picture, they also had no idea about where their guy stood on a variety of issues, preferring wishful thinking for cold, hard, facts.
That your views are so far to the right that you think everyone left of Pat Buchanan is a crazed liberal? 
I think this board is actually skewed toward the center, if anything, but that public discourse in this country is currently so heavily skewed toward the right that the board is perceived as being skewed to the left, esp. by people on the right. Look at the posts from people outside the U.S. and their amazement at the degree of rightward tilt in the U.S. We probably don’t see it so clearly because we are “in” it, so to speak.
I agree with part of this. I think, overall, the board is roughly centrist. It’s the loud ones that determine which way the board appears to tilt. Right now with the republicans in the majority, there are far more loud and left.
Where is the bias? Feel free to be specific. The report asked 'Pubbies a number of questions about facts important to US foreign policy and startling numbers of them (in contrast to Dems) gave very wrong answers. Where’s the bias?
Given how embarrassing this study is to Republicans, you’d have to think that there’d already be a contrasting study in popular circulation if there was one, or if one could be produced. The PIPA study is about, what, 6 months old now. At what point do we get to assume that the contrasting study you “could” produce can’t actually be produced?
Lovely spin shoes. Lemme guess. Did you find them in the Partisan Tap-dancing aisle?
Not claiming dibs on Mrs Cleo. Nor am I Mr Cleo. Then again, when it comes to Apologists, one need not be.
None of those quotes comes close to what you claimed. And really, if you could find one quote from 1998, would you feel better about your wild claims? Hey, someone once said this 10 years ago!!
So, that is your justification for deliberately lying about what other members here have posted? Calling you a pathetic little weasel would be an insult to all the weasels out there.
With respect to world politics, I’d be willing to agree the board is centrist.
With respect to US politics, this board skews left.
“World politics” or “western European politics”?
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.
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.
:::waves hand::: Me! Me! Me!
Collounsbury? 
Actually, I don’t even always know who is supposed to be a “liberal/lefty” since the epithet sees to get hurled at anyone who has spoken ill of the Iraq adventure. You have also imposed an arbitrary definition of “strong free market type” on the use of the word “libertarian” while I would include a lot of persons who take a “libertarian” approach to personal behavior vs the government, regardless of their economic positions.
This is one of the reasons that I have rather little sympathy for the claims that one group or another is being oppressed. The TM include large numbers of people with widely varying views on politics, economics, social behavior, international relations, law, and Rap music. The often trotted out “liberal vs conservative” dichotomy is an arbitrary distinction with fluid boundaries that is wielded by a tiny group of loud posters (of varying perspectives) in an effort to shape the board to their satisfaction.
I suspect, for example, that if a dozen posters mailed me a list of 20 people in each group, there would only be a union of all sets of about 6 posters. And if I published those dozen lists, there would be howls of protests from 60% - 80% of the people on those lists hat they had been mis-characterized.
It’s not too far off, though.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point. I can’t imagine calling someone “libertarian” who doesn’t lean strongly toward free market capitalism.
I share your lack of sympathy.
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.
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).
Maybe I am remembering the wrong set of questions, but I don’t think the one being referred to was a general knowledge test. Didn’t it have to do with how well the voters knew what the candidates supported? (Or am I thinking of something else?)
I don’t think that it is reasonable to expect most Democrat or Republican voters to know the average profit to earnings ratio for American companies. It does seem important to know where the candidates stand on the issues.
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.
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. The U.S. has a glorious history of various white, non-Muslim folks planting bombs (or mailing them), including what had been the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil up until the World Trade Center attacks. 9/11 was bloody, and successful (in a sense) in a way that prior terrorist attacks never had been. However, one large terrorist attack does not negate the many, many others that preceded it. 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.
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?
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.
Nor would I expect it to - I have not known you to be swayed by logic or fact in the past, I certainly wouldn’t expect the same actions to lead to different results in the future. I’m not that foolish. 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.
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) 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. Like I said, if the big words are a problem, I’ll make an effort to use shorter ones with you in the future.