Agreed. I should have said “political ideology” instead of “party affiliation”.
The figure for “overall” membership is pretty much meaningless, especially since paid membership was initiated. Active membership is now limited to paid members, plus those “Guests” who have registered for free membership in the last 30 days.
The vast majority of those 48,508 “registered” members are people whose signed up when the board was free and opted not to pay. A large percentage of the people who signed up then rarely or never posted in the first place. In addition, a significant number of registered users are banned trolls and sockpuppets.
The number of paid posters provides a much more accurate estimate of actual active posters than total registrations do.
Can’t we just say the overwhelming majority of loony liberals here is a perfect example of market forces at work, and leave it at that?
Ok, great…Then why do we have this number still posted on the homepage when it doesn’t accurately reflect the actual membership of the SDMB? May I request that count be scrapped and have an actual count of current paid members and current guest numbers be posted on this homepage?
I am anti-gun control to a limit. I believe in the right to concealed carry, I’m against the assault-rifle ban, because I think it’s useless feel-good legislaton and that should always be opposed.
However, I’m more open to mandatory firearms training, especially in urban areas. And background checks are fine.
I’m for government regulation of the environment, where it can be shown that the market isn’t doing it and there is real harm to 3rd parties. I prefer the government to set up market-oriented programs, such as pollution credits, as opposed to arbitrary regulation.
I am for government regulation of business to the extent that it keeps the market functioning smoothly. I am against government regulation of business designed to promote the ‘right’ technologies, ‘protect’ jobs, or otherwise meddle with a properly functioning market. I believe people should have the right to set their own prices, hire people for wages at whatever the market will bear, and fire them if they can’t afford them. I support the right to unionize, but I am opposed to ‘closed shops’ and ‘right to work’ legislation.
I am opposed to affirmative action on the grounds that the government has no right to impose laws on businesses to force social change. That is not the proper function of business, and in my experience affirmative action is counterproductive and feeds racism because it gives bigots ammunition to claim that minorities could never get jobs on their own merits.
I am for gay marriage, although what I’m really for is to have the government get out of the business of sanctioning marriage at all, so that this problem becomes moot.
I am for ending the war on drugs, which I think has been an absolute disaster and a moral evil.
I support things like physician-assisted suicide, cloning, and stem cell research.
I support a woman’s right to choose, although I think this is a real grey area where zealots on both sides draw lines in the sand that do not exist. On the one hand, it is hard to see how it is right to kill a viable baby as long as it is on one side of a membrane, whereas it’s murder if you kill it after it moves another eight inches. So partial-birth abortions of viable babies is a real dilemma for me.
My support for the Iraq war stems from my support of freedom. I do not believe that dictatorships are sovereign, because sovereignity gets its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. As rich, free people, I believe we have a moral duty to step in and help when other humans are being oppressed. That’s why I was a hawk in the cold war, why I supported Clinton’s interventions in the Balkans, and why I support the Iraq war. I also supported a military intervention in Rwanda, and I believe we should be doing much, much more to stop genocide in Africa today.
I am against tariffs, export controls other than controls based on national security, and other efforts to keep poor people poor and rich people rich. I think that people who fight to keep jobs in the U.S. or Canada at the expense of poor starving people who can do those jobs as well is an abomination. It is ultimately a form of taxation - we pay more for our goods to prop up workers in our own country, while the poor of the world, who could make our products cheaper and in the process improve their own lives, starve.
How’s that?
Well, John Mace, I don’t think we are really disagreeing. I agree with you that Libertarians are not the same as Republicans in every way, and I never said nor implied that they were. But looking at Sam’s list of issues, I get a “conservative” vibe, with just a few exceptions. You honestly don’t? Again, I’m not saying there aren’t more liberals here. But I think, to a certain extent, you guys are defining “conservative” out of existence. When you draw the line way to the right, or say that being liberal on just a couple issues like abortion and gay marriage outweighs being conservative on everything else, you’re exaggerating things. I mean, I am strongly in favor of balancing the budget - does that wipe out everything else and make me a “moderate”? I don’t think so.
Could I interest anyone in a Conservative Christmas Draw raffle ticket? First prize is a Mini and there are Fortnum and Mason Hampers for the runners up.
Only £1 a ticket and all proceeds going to the Conservative cause.
And yes I’m serious; I have hundreds of the buggers to sell.
So that’s what I thought, apparently you’re using conservative as some sort of synonym for right-leaning? I have no problem admitting I lean right on many topics (most if you consider libertarian right-wing), but conservative is a specific ideologue (actually fairly centrist) I don’t subscribe to. It’s in the name “conservative”: against change, wanting to preserve old traditions, etc. There is such a party in Denmark which I’ve never contemplated voting for.
Some of the topics which the conservatives have different views on than me:
Legalise for adults (>18) hash, tobacco, booze, drugs and anything else you can inhale, snort, shoot-up, inject or digest. Yep
Legalise any kind of consensual sex between adults (>15), porn, bestiality, prostitution, sex toys, public nudity and what have you not. Yup
Legalise lesbian and gay marriage, polygamy, bigamy, whatever-gamy. Yup. You can marry your cat and couch for all I care
Legalise lesbian artificial insemination. Yep
Legalise any kind of “victimless” crime; driving without seatbelt, helmet, etc. Yep
Separation of church and state. Yup
Favour a drastic smaller state that knows how to keep it long grubby fingers out of my life. Yep
Favour banishing the state from all intrusions in family politics. Yep. Don’t want any state-raised children thanks.
Send the bloddy royals to the guillotine. Yep
…and I don’t own a single tie or suit.
Not a conservative by any definition I know.
I do consider this board to have a considerable left-bend, don’t mind that in the least, this is why I’m here. What I find a bit annoying is a tendency among certain me-too posters to come down on divergent views with a ton of bricks and instant pitting. Why, if you value a good argument, which is what a discussion forum is for I suppose, you should cuddle and nurture your non-liberal members like innocent pink babes fresh from their mothers yahoo. I look forward to being pandered to.
Bzzt! Sorry, but I’m not a conservative. I’m neutral on the Left/right axis - though that’s significantly to the right of many of the more visible posters here - but stongly Libertarian as opposed to Statist.
Yeah, there’s a huge, gaping difference between libertarians and … well, bush republicans.
Sounds like “We want a bunch of stuff but we don’t want to pay for it.” I’m not sure how that works.
Well, then you’re wrong.
Diametrically opposed on government spending and taxation, yes. But pretty much matching on the role of government in your bedroom, the courthouse, schools, and so forth.
Simple two step process:
(1) Legalize prostitution and pot
(2) Tax the f*** out of them
I hear ya.
mmm…whores and pot…
I didn’t get put on the list :mad:
Gay Marriage? No.
Abortion? Yes.
Affirmative Action? No.
Flat Tax? No. I support the national sales tax. I also support the concept of a Constitutional Amendment that caps Congressional spending.
War in Iraq? Yes, but for more honest reasons.
Legalize Marijuana and control like booze? No.
Gun Registration? Hell, no. However, I do support the concept of a concealed-carry permit that ensures that the person armed has completed a training course and knows how to shoot and secure the weapon.
Welfare? With a endgame (job training, AmeriCorps-type work, WPA-style work) yes
English as the official language? Yes.
Slam the borders shut and run out the illegals? Yes.
I’m honored to be on the list. Sam speaks well for me except for the the fact that I am against gay marraige and I support keeping drugs illegal. The one caveat to that would be to emphasize prevention and treatment to dry up the supply and then go after the suppliers instead of the users. And he didn’t address the death penalty unless I missed it. I support it.
If this come off as hoplessly naive, please excuse me. I’m Canadian, after all… 
Why does it matter so much to fit yourself under a particular label/flag?
Is there a conservative party & liberal party in the states?
Whatever happened to being on one side or other of a given issues alone?
How come there is such bitter hatred for people on the “other side”
Perhaps that’s why we seek these labels, so we can know right away with whom to associate, whom to villify,whom to praise and whom to scorn, without having to listen to them too much.
Although I am not much of a participants in the pit and GD fora, I do participate on a firearms board. The amount and level of hostility there against “liberals” is quite disconcerting.
Especially when these labels change over time, and over place. I’m sure the most die-hard-Albertan-formerConservative-formerReformer-now-Alliance conservative in Canada would probably be considered a moderate or perhaps even a liberal by some conservatives in Texas. And I won’t even bother mentioning folks in Europe…
Why do we spend so much energy on determining if this board is more in one camp than the other? The only reason I can see is to be able to make a value jugment on whether this board is to be scorned or valued.
Well let me tell you something about these boards, especially to those of you who don’t make it out to MPSIMS, IMHO, and GQ much. This board is blessed by a most astounding compendium of human expertise who can answer an incredible variety of questions, often from an expert and first person perspective. It is blessed by posters who strive to help out others, take time to offer experience and advice, to be kind, supportive and loving to strangers they may never meet. It has offered grief councelling, parenting support, pshychotherapy, reality checks, encouragement, wisdom, belly laughs, neat trivia, wonderfull new musical and artistic discoveries, cool little known secrets, the joy of being silly and running naked through a thread, and a generally damn fine read.
So judge it on that, not on a silly label.
I’m opposed to the death penalty on practical grounds. Two of the most common arguments for the death penalty are that it saves money over incarcerating someone for life, and that it acts as a deterrent to crime. I used to believe both of those things. But it turns out that the lengthy appeals process is much more expensive. And as for deterring crime, it also seems that juries are more likely to acquit when the death penalty is the specified punishment. So I’m not sure it does much good there either.
So absent any compelling reasons, I think you err on the side of sparing a life.
Now, terrorists are different. Because they are essentially combatants in a war that will not end as long as they are alive. Terrorists don’t retire. And jailing them has the unfortunate side effect of triggering hostage takings demanding release, etc. So I support the death penalty in that case, as well as a few other extreme cases. Serial murderers, for example. Basically, I guess I’m for making the death penalty far more stringent. A single execution should be rare enough that it’s a nationwide story.
Heh. I finally get back here after a 2 week hiatus and I’ve been mentioned in a pit OP. Woohoo. Some kinda milestone.
FWIW, count me among those uncomfortable with being labelled Capital-C Conservative. I’m a registered Libertarian, though I don’t drink the full jug of Kool-Aid. I support gay marriage and legalized drugs, I can countenance some kinds of affirmative action, I’m pretty squeamish about the death penalty, and am in favor of legal abortion within limits.
I voted for Dukakis. I would have voted for Lieberman this year. Clinton was OK; in fact I’d prefer he were in office now. Make of me what you will.
If I create the impression of being a conservative, it’s probably because I’m a contrarian; I come here to argue, and post mostly when I’m going against the flow. Thus, my conservative side gets put on display a lot more; I’m pretty much unnecessary in, frex, a gay marriage thread. For that matter, I sometimes argue a postion I’m only 50% committed to as an intellectual exercise, and I’m usually taking a conservative postion in those.
And Blowero, I owe you a post; sorry for disappearing.
I agree. Though I can see a place for executions. Capital cases would have to meet an even higher standards for conviction. But as a general rule I also prefer that err be made toward the side of not killing. Easier to correct that way.