Jim in Anchorage Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) It was suggested by one poster last week that the PPP board is heavily slanted toward the right. That once the right wingers get going, the threads turn into a self congratulatory love fest of conservatism. However, I do not think this is the case, rather, it might appear that way because most of the drive by and troll posters (DiN, Conner) are not the most eliquent in terms of thier arguments. I am speaking in a general sense, because there are many posters who while are more left of center, can and do phrase thier arguments in a concise and intellegent manner. So what say you all? Is this a right-wing board, or is it just a matter of there being more right wingers with a better command of the art of argument and debate? No I think the hard liberals are one shot wonders and soon run out of steam. Personal experience here: When I first started posting here I could say the sky is blue and bizul and hedd would shoot back with Palin "jokes" and saying Alaska is a welfare state [referring to the Alaska permanent fund,that they plainly knew nothing about]. Then I got lybob who has a wall chart with Alaska rape statistics,and now c biscuit saying Alaska has more seals then minorities so I have a closed mind. Apparently living in Alaska makes me a racist monster. Bottom line,I think liberals love the emotional argument [which works well on the Oprah show] rather then explaining their views to the cold hard light of day. Edited May 20, 2012 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted May 20, 2012 Author Share Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) No I think the hard liberals are one shot wonders and soon run out of steam. Personal experience here: When I first started posting here I could say the sky is blue and bizul and hedd would shoot back with Palin "jokes" and saying Alaska is a welfare state [referring to the Alaska permanent fund,that they plainly knew nothing about]. Then I got lybob who has a wall chart with Alaska rape statistics,and now c biscuit saying Alaska has more seals then minorities so I have a closed mind. Apparently living in Alaska makes me a racist monster. Bottom line,I think liberals love the emotional argument [which works well on the Oprah show] rather then explaining their views to the cold hard light of day. ah, I think you have it! This is what I was trying to distill down from all the information and couldn't get, emotional response rather than careful crafting of plausible argument... apologies to Conner if I mispelled something with my one hand typing as I am holding the baby at present... Edited May 20, 2012 by TheMadCap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 We've figured it out! Liberals are emotional idiots and conservatives just crush them on this board. I mean literally crush them with hard fact and irrefutable arguments it happens constantly. !@#$ing liberal pussies. Political discussion is boxing and liberals just got knocked the !@#$ out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 We've figured it out! Liberals are emotional idiots and conservatives just crush them on this board. I mean literally crush them with hard fact and irrefutable arguments it happens constantly. !@#$ing liberal pussies. Political discussion is boxing and liberals just got knocked the !@#$ out. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 We've figured it out! Liberals are emotional idiots and conservatives just crush them on this board. I mean literally crush them with hard fact and irrefutable arguments it happens constantly. !@#$ing liberal pussies. Political discussion is boxing and liberals just got knocked the !@#$ out. It's true that they have glass jaws, big bottoms and soft heads. They can't even argue without spouting their hysterical views that they are somehow the saviors of mankind. When it comes time to cull the herd they should be pushed to the front or at least told that it is ok to jump the line for their whiney little bitches awards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) We've figured it out! Liberals are emotional idiots and conservatives just crush them on this board. I mean literally crush them with hard fact and irrefutable arguments it happens constantly. !@#$ing liberal pussies. Political discussion is boxing and liberals just got knocked the !@#$ out. +1 In all seriousness I'd say the board is primarily fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We don't talk social issues all that much so it makes it seem a lot more conservative. Edited May 20, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 50 is probably a better barrier. And it's all older people of a certain age. The younger generation grew up in a different world. Some people still are disgusted by interracial or gay couples. And I honestly respect everyone's opinion if it is presented the right way. but you guys like DC Tom who flex their internet muscles if you have a different point a view. I hate the 2 party system. It's stupid and it's flawed. But people treat it like it's the Bloods and the Crips. You have to only support your gang at all costs. There isn't one right way to do something. The truth is somewhere in the middle. But people here hate hearing that. This is true. However, the middle is a big !@#$ing place. The inclination of soft moderates to try to find ground between the two competing ends of a current political spectrum and think that somehow makes them enlightened is irritating. There are all manner of different approaches in the middle. In fact, most partisans are somewhere "in the middle." It's usually a question of what side you're erring on. Where I think liberals miss the boat, and therefore why I tend to identify more with conservatives, is they view the world almost exclusively through a prism of rich v. poor, or haves v. have nots, or corporations v. government; and then proceed to label one group the good guys and the other group the bad guys (so much for shades of grey). In my experience, conservatives are more likely to understand that government and corporations both pose a threat and both are essential. Conservatives also understand that what is good for the rich and what is good for the poor isn't always mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 +1 In all seriousness I'd say the board is primarily fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We don't talk social issues all that much so it makes it seem a lot more conservative. There has been 1(one), maybe 2(two), knock down, drag out abortion thread since I have been here....and the one I recall wasn't even started intentionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 We've figured it out! Liberals are emotional idiots and conservatives just crush them on this board. I mean literally crush them with hard fact and irrefutable arguments it happens constantly. !@#$ing liberal pussies. Political discussion is boxing and liberals just got knocked the !@#$ out. No, the majority of our emotional idiots are liberals, and they tend to stick around longer. The conservative emotional idiots typically don't last as long. I've said it before: the board's not anti-liberal. It's anti-schmuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 I don't listen to podcasts until they're on newsstands. You're on a roll, LA. You're right about the weenies coming back on Mitt's 3rd day in office demanding to know "Where are the jobs?" They don't have the sense or guts to be asking the current occupant of the Oval Office that same question right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 This is true. However, the middle is a big !@#$ing place. The inclination of soft moderates to try to find ground between the two competing ends of a current political spectrum and think that somehow makes them enlightened is irritating. There are all manner of different approaches in the middle. In fact, most partisans are somewhere "in the middle." It's usually a question of what side you're erring on. Where I think liberals miss the boat, and therefore why I tend to identify more with conservatives, is they view the world almost exclusively through a prism of rich v. poor, or haves v. have nots, or corporations v. government; and then proceed to label one group the good guys and the other group the bad guys (so much for shades of grey). In my experience, conservatives are more likely to understand that government and corporations both pose a threat and both are essential. Conservatives also understand that what is good for the rich and what is good for the poor isn't always mutually exclusive. To me a "moderate" is someone who can agree to come to an agreement and cares about the process of deliberation, and is willing to compromise to move us all one incremental foot forward. The country needs direction and either side refusing to compromise will destroy us. When I think of a "moderate" I don't necessarily think of just finding a middle though. It's not about changing people's mind or somehow proving someone idea correct w/ other ideas wrong (we live in a complex world). It's just about preserving some sense of rationality in the process itself and ultimately "getting to yes" even if nobody is completely happy with the result (usually a sign of a good bargain). Just a determination to get things solved by cooperation. Conflict wins elections. Cooperation solves problems in the real world. More than anything else, more than any specific idea on any particular issue the philosophy of being a moderate (lol) is about cooperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 To me a "moderate" is someone who can agree to come to an agreement and cares about the process of deliberation, and is willing to compromise to move us all one incremental foot forward. The country needs direction and either side refusing to compromise will destroy us. When I think of a "moderate" I don't necessarily think of just finding a middle though. It's not about changing people's mind or somehow proving someone idea correct w/ other ideas wrong (we live in a complex world). It's just about preserving some sense of rationality in the process itself and ultimately "getting to yes" even if nobody is completely happy with the result (usually a sign of a good bargain). Just a determination to get things solved by cooperation. Conflict wins elections. Cooperation solves problems in the real world. More than anything else, more than any specific idea on any particular issue the philosophy of being a moderate (lol) is about cooperation. To some extent we're discussing semantics. Some described as "moderates" are people who understand the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches and look to find a sensible balance. Many (I'd say most but haven't done a study on it) just kind of go with whatever seems intuitively right to them and get off on being too level headed to get caught up in the details. Compromise isn't always a good thing. Sometimes it's necessary but sometimes it's essentially surrender. On fiscal issues the left has mastered this deception. Fiscal conservatism would dictate cutting taxes and spending while fiscal liberalism would dictate the opposite. Conservatives (as a compromise) stake out the position of leaving it how it is, liberals decide we need massive increases; conservatives "compromise" by keeping tax rates level and increasing spending (which is no different in the long term from a tax increase). CA is a good example. Min. wage was around $8/hr a few years back, Conservatives didn't even think there should be a min wage, liberals thought it should be $12+, so as a "compromise" they raised it around $2/hr. There's no compromise here. It's just whether the left gets all they want or some of what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 To some extent we're discussing semantics. Some described as "moderates" are people who understand the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches and look to find a sensible balance. Many (I'd say most but haven't done a study on it) just kind of go with whatever seems intuitively right to them and get off on being too level headed to get caught up in the details. Compromise isn't always a good thing. Sometimes it's necessary but sometimes it's essentially surrender. On fiscal issues the left has mastered this deception. Fiscal conservatism would dictate cutting taxes and spending while fiscal liberalism would dictate the opposite. Conservatives (as a compromise) stake out the position of leaving it how it is, liberals decide we need massive increases; conservatives "compromise" by keeping tax rates level and increasing spending (which is no different in the long term from a tax increase). CA is a good example. Min. wage was around $8/hr a few years back, Conservatives didn't even think there should be a min wage, liberals thought it should be $12+, so as a "compromise" they raised it around $2/hr. There's no compromise here. It's just whether the left gets all they want or some of what they want. Compromise to me doesn't always mean ending up in the middle. And it certainly doesn't mean ending up with a "good thing" if that's what it meant there would be one party...the party of compromise lol. It means cooperation and reaching a result. People lose/win compromises all the time...and both sides are going to have be willing to pick and choose where they can give and not be so caught up in political-capital. I'm not really familiar with anything about the example you put forth so I won't really get into it but sometimes what you call surrender is strength. True conviction, true conviction...to the operation of government and to cooperation for solutions/disagreements is a duty people in Washington have and there are some who have abdicated that duty (my opinion). I thing most people agree w/ something like the budget there's obviously two ways this ends...cooperation or crisis as a result of failing to act. Taking too strong of a bargaining position, certainly to start is sometimes good, but sometimes it creates inefficiencies in the bargaining process that ultimately hurts everyone. Decent book to consider checking out that I like is called "Getting to Yes." In no way has it solved the issue that bargaining is tough stuff but it's got some good concepts about how to approach negotiation and also (to me) shed some light on how some traditional hard-line negotiation tactics that I previously thought were "just how it's done" are actually harmful to those employing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Compromise to me doesn't always mean ending up in the middle. And it certainly doesn't mean ending up with a "good thing" if that's what it meant there would be one party...the party of compromise lol. It means cooperation and reaching a result. People lose/win compromises all the time...and both sides are going to have be willing to pick and choose where they can give and not be so caught up in political-capital. I'm not really familiar with anything about the example you put forth so I won't really get into it but sometimes what you call surrender is strength. True conviction, true conviction...to the operation of government and to cooperation for solutions/disagreements is a duty people in Washington have and there are some who have abdicated that duty (my opinion). I thing most people agree w/ something like the budget there's obviously two ways this ends...cooperation or crisis as a result of failing to act. Taking too strong of a bargaining position, certainly to start is sometimes good, but sometimes it creates inefficiencies in the bargaining process that ultimately hurts everyone. Decent book to consider checking out that I like is called "Getting to Yes." In no way has it solved the issue that bargaining is tough stuff but it's got some good concepts about how to approach negotiation and also (to me) shed some light on how some traditional hard-line negotiation tactics that I previously thought were "just how it's done" are actually harmful to those employing them. Are you a lawyer/law student? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Are you a lawyer/law student? I plead the 5th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Are you a lawyer/law student? I was thinking the same thing. He admits he doesn't have much experience, so everything he knows is most likely secondhand or through reading. Probably just repeating what some teacher/professor said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) Oh, look everybody, Conner's back... Spelling errors aside (three week old baby, no sleep, sorry) I'm not actually arguing anything, mearly asking a question. Would you like to put forth your opinion or should DC Tom just cut to the chase and call you an idiot? You said I was ineloquent and and unintelligent while simultaneously misspelling the words eloquent and intelligent. I can't imagine a conversation with you would have any value. There is not much difference between the discussions on this board and that of Redstate or Freerepublic. It's just less hateful and less racist here. Edited May 21, 2012 by conner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 ive been to tons of boards all over the nfl. this is by far, the furthest right wing message board on politics i have ever seen. borderline john birch society... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 ive been to tons of boards all over the nfl. this is by far, the furthest right wing message board on politics i have ever seen. borderline john birch society... Did you see that in zeitgeist part 4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Did you see that in zeitgeist part 4? you're refuting e.e. cummings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts