Is this a right-wing website

LOL,

do you remember lot of threads like "Jesus was a gay", "Enjoy Lesbian Life", "Pedophilia is fine", "Incarcerate all Conservatives", "I want to sleep with Obama", "Black Power is good", "Whites are dumb", etc. etc. etc. Thanks God the quality of Forum is improved because there are fewer perverse liberal threads here.

 

Well, you better ring up gallup and point this out to them!

What's it matter anyways? More people self identify as conservative than liberal, and the forum membership seems to reflect this.

As far the site staff goes, there is no conspiracy going on. The staff is not right leaning by design. The site is not right leaning by design. It wasn't too long ago that a moderator (who's not conservative btw) addressed this issue in a similar thread, and I'll paraphrase, "If liberals could learn to follow the rules, there would be more liberal staff".

So to the OP, no, PF is not a "right wing website". Look closely at the mission statement:

 

I can point to one of those occasions too. Before I came here in 2004 and became a Mod.....I was posting at a site where the owner was liberal; didn't like my views and told me I'd have to leave. Said it was her site and she could choose the people she wanted there. So I left. That's when I came across this brand new site, where I was asked to moderate within a couple of weeks.

Listening to just one side of anything is boring and one doesn't learn a thing that way. It's one reason why we welcome all views here and anyone is welcome....as long as they abide by the TOS and rules.

JP5

 

Here's my tuppence worth -

I do not consider this a right-wing (or a left-wing) website in respect of its raison d'être. It is simply a (mainly political) discussion board. I would certainly concur that the majority of frequent posters (as opposed to the overall membership) give the impression of being very conservative in the political sense.

But we need to be careful about labelling people in the very general sense, and then applying specific attributes to them without any evidence thereof. It is possible, and even probable, to have persons who are extremely conservative in the sense of party politics, yet are very liberal (in the original and proper sense of the word) in their social attitudes. Just as you may have people who are unashamedly socialist in their political views, yet can be quite conservative in their religious and societal judgments.

I generally reject the socio-political labels of which I spoke, but I suspect that I am regarded as a bit of a 'pinko' (for my sociological views) by a number of people here. E.g: I support UHC, free education, unemployment benefits, and a number of other 'Commie' programmes. Despite this, I think I get on quite well with a number of ostensibly very conservative members here. I do not write this to demonstrate my abilities, but rather the fact that people are people, no matter what their political affiliations. So you will find interesting, logical, and humane, views being expressed by the most self-avowedly conservative people.

I grant you the fact that, of late, there have been the most horrifying, unsympathetic, inhumane, and racist views expressed by people who have self-identified as conservative - perhaps the worst have surfaced in the Martin-Zimmerman threads. But I do not consider these indicative of the general quality of posts on this board. I think (at least, I hope) they are an aberration.

As to the moderation, I have no idea which mods are 'right wing' and which are otherwise - this is not apparent in the moderation of this board. I see no political bias there, and while I concede that sometimes, less is more in these matters, I do think that the moderation is perhaps not strict enough with obvious trolls. But generally, this is an excellently moderated site - I have experienced those which are not. I joined this site when I was still 15, and, by nature, I have a big mouth, but I have been treated very gently by the mods.

So my advice, FWIW, is to engage with everyone here (conservative and otherwise alike,) don't let the trolls (of either political persuasion) get to you, and you might be surprised by the interesting discussions available. Stick around and try it.

 

That's probably true. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are technically two separate sources.

"Conservatives continue to make up the largest segment of political views in the country, outnumbering liberals nearly two-to-one, according to a new poll Thursday.

The Gallup survey found that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative; 35 percent consider themselves moderate; and 21 percent see themselves as liberal. The figures did not change from 2010.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71385.html#ixzz1yTeM1CpB
"

First off, thank you for explicitly stating your support for socialism. Most progressives are too cowardly on PF to do that.

Americans will hopefully always value freedom, and socialism is not freedom. It never has been, nor will it ever be. It's a system that rewards mediocrity and punishes success. Competition and hard work is what makes the economy better, not laziness. They will remember the 80's and 90's as a time of great economic expansion and success thanks to businesses hiring people, profits being made, new technologies being pursued, etc. They're not going to thank socialism for that, despite your wish to the contrary.

They also worked hard, unlike today's lazy socialists, who sit at home waiting for their monthly check from the taxpayer. They didn't have the entitlement mentality that the people of today have. Those policies may have been feasible back then, but we can't afford them now, thanks in large part to the destruction that the left and their policies have caused.

Obama's failure of a Presidency and his attempts at introducing socialism have been a huge failure. People will eventually realize that America needs to go back to basics, and the economic slavery and the policies of failure that you are advocating will be discarded like a used tampon. Count on it.

 

First of all, you seem to be making the assumption than someone who holds "right-leaning" personal views cannot moderate fairly. There are 11 Mods right now....and one or two are not very active at the moment for personal reasons. On personal views, I'd say there are 5 conservatives, 3 liberals, 2 libertarians who are sometimes conservative-leaning, and sometimes liberal-leaning. There's one or two that it's hard to tell where they are politically speaking. BUT that's personal views; has nothing to do with Moderator deliberations, enforcing the rules, and voting on issues. More often than not, those things don't fall along the lines of personal political views.

How? When we post....we post as members. And any "political agenda" by any Mod is remedied by the FACT we've put in place many checks and balances against it. For instance, to change a rule, our vote must be unanimous; not majority. Members are not easily banned, as this too requires a vote and a certain amount of agreement among Mods.

 

You think we're all that bad....AND YET.....you are still here after 3 years????

 

Sounds like a typical liberal forum. The type of forum where liberals would not be complaining about a plummeting lack of quality.

 

They demand absolute power. If there is 1 person in a group of 100 that doesn't feel the way they do, they would be complaining about it, and will use that one person as a scapegoat for why their utopian dreams are not becoming reality. They had the Presidency and large majorities in both houses of Congress, and they were still complaining about Republicans, even though they got everything they wanted passed.

Liberals are a lot like the aliens from the movie Independence Day. You cannot negotiate with them.

[video=youtube;wwhI7qdrsaA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwhI7qdrsaA[/video]

 

Not true. There some stereotyping going on there, it seems. I personally listen to all sources. I listen to NPR, CNN, and I read a liberal-leaning newspaper each and every morning. And WOW....do you realize how this "white Christian" comment sounds????

You mean that group who has paid into the system since the 60's,...since they first went to work....with it being taking out of their paychecks against their will??? Those people?? And yeah, after we're dead and gone you can screw it up all you want IF there are enough of you. You can turn it into Greece where EVERYBODY gets a free lunch! But God....I hope and pray there aren't enough that will be willing to destroy our wonderful country in that manner. Too many people have sacrificed.....starting with the Revolutionary War.......to give us what we have. I only hope and pray the coming generations don't poop it all away....

ALL liberals....and those who believe that money grows on trees and we all need a free lunch. Look where we are today......with all those things HAVING to be scaled back out of necessity. Because they have learned that ALAS, money does NOT grow on trees. Someone always pays.

Personally, I'd much rather have been given the CHOICE to stay out of the Medicare and Social Security. I'd have FAR more money today had I been able to invest my OWN money....and I would have CONTROL over my OWN money and I could even pass my OWN money down to my children and grandchildren. An idea foreign to liberals. But liberals don't give choices, do they? Not for anything but killing babies, that is.

And while you're blasting "Baby Boomers," let me educate you a bit on them. I am one; my husband is one and I have many friends who are BB's. Let me tell you what WE did....see if your generation can match up. My husband and I put ourselves through college; each the FIRST on our families to go to college and graduate from college. Then we played by the rules; we saved and lived within our means. While our liberal friends were going in debt to buy cars they couldn't afford every 3 years and going on expensive vacations....we were saving and studying hard to get ahead. We were serving our country and not marching in the streets, destroying property and calling the police "pigs." We started out with very little or nothing, but we finally made it. And now, those same liberals who overspent, didn't save, didn't plan, and always expected Big Daddy federal gov't to make their decisions for them and give them stuff, want to take all that WE earned.

Imagine that.

 

I like this site.

You hear all sides (sooner or later) and it gets real interesting at times.

Some people are not as conservative as they think, and some are not as liberal as they think they are.

It just depends on the issue.

 

Do you consider that an appropriate response from someone who, albeit posting as a member, is also a moderator? "If you don't like it - don't let the door hit you on the arse on your way out ..." is hardly an attitude likely to attract membership (especially from people lurking and undecided whether to join). If there are criticisms of the board's methodology and makeup, surely they are better addressed by discussion, rather than dismissal?

 

First off, I didn't ask it that way. Those are YOUR words, not mine. AND I HAVE been discussing it above, in case you missed it. I wouldn't stay somewhere for years posting if I didn't like it. Would you? As you see above, there are many who like it here and I think that's why PF is so popular and been around so long.

 

"If you don't like it here - leave!" was implicit in your response. I know that you have discussed the issue sensibly in this thread, which is why I was suprised by your response.

I have been a member for many years - that comprises my recommendation. But it does not preclude constructive discussion of those aspects other members may not value.

 

Moderators are forum members first and foremost. I suspect no moderator would volunteer for the hassle...or last very long.... if they were to required to waterdown their delivery or opinions.

 

I will remember you said that, todd.

 

This is a fairly well balanced forum in terms of posters on each side of the aisle.

Where it gets imbalanced is in the fact that the right wing debates far more effectively.

And that's because they're right.

 

Yes, I think that is fair comment, and I would not wish to impose any restrictions upon opinions in general. It is no biggie, but I just think someone being a mod and suggesting people leave a board is perhaps worthy of question. I have been known to be wrong.

 

I want to specifically point out Makkede. She seems to make an effort to keep her political comments relatively neutral, although she begins to get pushed towards taking a solid stand in some of the abortion threads. It is quite an art to be able to make insightful comment about a political issue while withholding personal judgement. I do not see any problem with moderators making opinionated (even hateful) comments, so long as they remain fair and unbiased in dealing with everyone else that does not share their beliefs. If some of the moderators seem a little biased towards what they allow and what they do not allow, some of it may likely be that they are really trying to overcompensate to not let their own bias interfere with fairness. So when it appears they are biased one way, they may actually have the complete opposite bias.

 

This is a website of communists, socialists, libertarians, anarchists, fascists, etc.

Mostly conservative, libertarians and socialists though.

 

I did not ask anyone to leave. You're reading something into the question that wasn't there. Toddwv is a long term good member; I would not want him to leave. You seem to be trying to turn this around and make it about me. I simply responded to a comment that stated liberals and moderates were leaving in mass and compared the site to a Klan meeting. It's quite fair to then ask.....a-s-k......if someone truly believes that then why would they stay around? Despite the few that continually complain....and that is Both liberal as well as conservatives.....PF has been quite successful and most of those who complain continue to post here. Many try other sites, but come back here. Now, that says to me that we must be doing something right.

But that's just my opinion. You are certainly welcome to yours. I do believe, however, it's pretty low and unfair to mention "Klan meeting" in the discussion of PF.
JP5

 

The Daily Show and the Colbert Report don't account for even a 1/10th of my information sources.

As addressed in a previous post, that's based on self-report skewed by an aging socially conservative segment of the population and the fact that most people are ill-informed as well as confused about the terms being used.

Just like most "conservatives" fail to mention their inherently authoritarian natures.

Social Security is socialist in concept and execution. It has freed a LOT of lower and middle class workers from the specter of inevitable poverty and the need to work oneself until dead.

And when hard work isn't enough?

"Businesses hiring"

Interesting. Today we have a situation where taxes are at their lowest point, particularly for corporations. Profits are at historic highs while companies sit on trillions in capital. Where are the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing jobs?

The answer: lost to the global market, an increase in productivity due to automation and a weak tax structure that rewards the offshoring of jobs instead of the creation of jobs here with so many loopholes that many companies pay zero or even negative taxes.

So naturally the answer is to give them even more tax breaks?

Insanity.

Yes, they were willing to sacrifice for the FUTURE; a better America for EVERYONE. They established infrastructure in this country that rivaled the best in the world. Bridges, roads, education facilities... you name it and it was built and they used a progressive tax system with a top rate was 2 to 3 times what it is today. That's why they were able to build this country into an economic power even while ensuring that those hardest hit by poverty have a safety net, that retirement should no longer be feared as most likely leading to living in a shanty eating cat food. That indigent children eat well, have clothing and get other basic necessities met.

And then America's most selfish generation came along and decided that they didn't want any of that. They were going to collect their fat pensions, cash their SS checks and use Medicare to pay for their pills but they didn't want anyone else to follow in their footsteps.

The US was on track to have its debts paid off somewhere between 2006 - 2011. So what happened? THE REPUBLICANS!! Naturally, this didn't fit the Republicans' starve the beast agenda so they set us on the path to a seemingly insurmountable mountain of debt. We didn't have a problem paying for our debt until the Republicans took over.

Instead of roads, bridges, schools and well-fed children, we got war, a bloated "defense" budget, corporate welfare, a wealth gap that hasn't been seen since before the Great Depression and to top it off an economy that was collapsing.

But hey, at least the older generation is getting theirs, right?

People are realizing that the Republicans are playing for broke. They are burning bridges and obstructing anything that resembles an attempt to get the economy on track. The Republicans are going to pay a stiff penalty for their reticence to do what's necessary. Mark my words.

 

My views are sometimes considered anti-american but I am not anti-american as I love my country and the fruits that it gives me from the entitlement programs.

So I can relate to your assertion that when I ascertain my stances here and have been told I should leave the country much less the forum and go back to africa or israel or wherever they think im from depending on the conversation.

It is a horrible feeling being asked to leave the country or this forum that is your beloved so I thank you for your constructive criticism on this related topic.

 

Really? Where did I say that? I thought that I made it relatively clear that this wasn't the case. Perhaps you could go back and read my post, this time focusing on comprehension.

Most, if not all the "conservative" mods are pretty far on the right end of the spectrum, while 1 of the liberals is closer to "left-leaning", another is a classic liberal and two are hard to peg because they mostly hang out in social threads. Both of the libertarians are right-leaning.

In addition, both of the advisers aren't just hard-right but have histories as very anti-liberal.

Of course, I don't read every post made by everybody so I can only go off the information that I've been exposed to. If I've mischaracterized someone, I apologize. I'm not trying to offend anyone at the personal level. I just want to make it clear that I feel that the mod board balance is very important and has wide-reaching effects on how the board progresses.

The mod board is in a state of imbalance and the trend has been to move even further right as shown by the two far-right advisers who are ostensibly being groomed for mod positions.

I will state explicitly that I don't question you when you say the mods personal views don't affect the above. However, there are areas that are inherently affected by personal views particularly in the relatively subjective areas such as what counts as flamebaiting, trolling or insufficiently discussion provoking.

Which is why it's important that balance is maintained or the overall board quality will suffer.

 

If I were the recipient, especially as a new member, of this advice, I would certainly consider it an invitation to go elsewhere.

You followed that by this comment to another poster -

Both your posts carry a similar implication.

I am doing no such thing. I merely asked, politely, if the 'If you don't like it here - go somewhere else ...' attitude indicated by your posts was the most constructive way of debating the OP's thesis, (with which, as my previous post indicates, I do not necessarily agree) and that of Toddwy. Surely you see that your words as a moderator, (even though written simply as a member,) would carry greater impact with a new poster - particularly in relation to the suggestion of going elsewhere?

Anyway, I see no point in taking this issue any further. You say you did not intend the sense in which your statements could have been taken, and your word is sufficient for me.