Oh yeah, like your 2.1 qualifies you as a Nazi. You centrists are so cute when you pretend to be all tough.MissTeja wrote:*points way up to her score*The Eclipse wrote:It's appearing that me and moo are the only two that are actually in support of Big Brother.
Your political compass
- Bethyaga
- Knight of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2777
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2002 10:39 pm
- Location: Nebraska, USA
- Contact:
_Whoever invented that brush that goes next to the toilet is an idiot, cuz that thing hurts.
- Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
- MissTeja
- Wuffle Grand Master
- Posts: 1959
- Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 3:25 am
- Location: Grand Rapids
- Contact:
*takes a Crayola washable marker and draws a swastika-looking thing on her cheek, puts an orange up each sleeve, flexes and gives Bethy a big grin* Now, tell me I'm not tough... lolBethyaga wrote:Oh yeah, like your 2.1 qualifies you as a Nazi. You centrists are so cute when you pretend to be all tough.
To the entire world, you may be one single person, but to one person, you may be the entire world.
- FlameBlade
- SMITE!™ Master
- Posts: 8644
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
- Contact:
- FlakJacket
- Orbital Cow Private
- Posts: 4064
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: Birminghman, UK
- Sowhat
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1598
- Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 9:08 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
We should plot everyone on a graph and make a Bulldrek political compass, like the site has done with famous people. Does anyone have a program that allows you to plot points on a graph and label them?
_</hr>Weeeeeeeeee...
- Instant Cash
- Bondsman of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 3:15 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Marius wrote:It's funny how amazingly far left most of you fools are. According to the site, every single candidate for president, excepting Kucinich and Sharpton are fairly right of center.
And hence the reason they all suck complete ass.
Who is more the fool? The ones who question or the ones who follow?
I am chillin with the Dalai Lama
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72
I want to shoot one of these Church kids and ask them "Where is your god now!"
-Big Jim
-Big Jim
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
- Salvation122
- Grand Marshall of the Imperium
- Posts: 3776
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:20 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
Nah the abortion question was a chioce question, not a complusion question. So the appropriate question for China would be something like "It is ok for the government to force women to have abortions to keep population down", and thus it would be a +authoritatian question rather than the -authoritarian question about whether women should be able to choose an abortion.Spiral wrote:Is, say, pro-abortion an authoritarian or libertarian aim? One would think libertarian, but China's one child per family rule amounts to much the same thing.
Anyhow:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74
Interestingly this agrees with the AOL "pick your president thing" which put Sharpton, kucinich, kerry, dean for me. Just what this compass thing would suggest. Though actually I don't think these things are capturing my market free trade support very well because they assume that these things can only be done in the way they are being done and are thus putting me a bit further left economically than I really am.
Edit: ps they have a nice faq about why the thing is the way it is, etc.
_No, I'm not John Tynes.
-
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
- Location: Hawai'i
- Contact:
Did anyone else notice how few world leaders were in the bottom right quadrant? Struck me as funny, because it would make logical sense that an economic liberal who likely favors small government would also be a social liberal.
Last edited by mrmooky on Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I was surprised by how hardcore left my result was.
Economic Left/Right: -9.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15
I didn't like the emphasis placed on religious attitudes throughout the test. They seemed heavily biased towards monotheistic religions and associated social beliefs. I decided to go through the test again and take it in accordance with my particular beliefs. So "faith-based schools are important" became "atheism should be taught in schools", and "religion and morality are closely linked" became "secular humanism and morality are closely linked". Now that I was being asked about the state enforcing my own views, rathr than someone else's, I became a lot more socially authoritarian:
Economic Left/Right: -9.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.26
Any more than that and I'd be living it up with Mugabe and Arafat in the top left corner.
Economic Left/Right: -9.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15
I didn't like the emphasis placed on religious attitudes throughout the test. They seemed heavily biased towards monotheistic religions and associated social beliefs. I decided to go through the test again and take it in accordance with my particular beliefs. So "faith-based schools are important" became "atheism should be taught in schools", and "religion and morality are closely linked" became "secular humanism and morality are closely linked". Now that I was being asked about the state enforcing my own views, rathr than someone else's, I became a lot more socially authoritarian:
Economic Left/Right: -9.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.26
Any more than that and I'd be living it up with Mugabe and Arafat in the top left corner.
I would say it simply points out the basic hypocrisy of most of the politicians who claim they want "small government". Because usually these are the politicians who also want huge militaries, lots of regulation of individuals private lives, more law enforcement and harsher sentences, and lots of subsidization of particular industries. Really they aren't for "small government" at all, it is just a campaign slogan. Likely there are a few fringe republican congressmen who might fit down there somewhere. Tim May certainly would, but he isnt a politician.mrmooky wrote:Did anyone else notice how few world leaders were in the bottom right quadrant? Struck me as funny, because it would make logical sense that an economic liberal who likely favors small government would also be a social liberal.
_No, I'm not John Tynes.
- FlameBlade
- SMITE!™ Master
- Posts: 8644
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
- Contact:
To make you feel better..you can just move the axes to center of the masses to find who is the most centrist. Remember, this is made by Europeans, and they may have distinct different views of who is left/right.Salvation122 wrote:I flat out /refuse/ to believe that I'm the most centrist person on this board.
So...Center of board...is somewhere to the right of me.
_I'm a nightmare of every man's fantasy.
- Anguirel
- Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
- Location: City of Angels
See! I'm centrist!FlameBlade wrote:To make you feel better..you can just move the axes to center of the masses to find who is the most centrist.Salvation122 wrote:I flat out /refuse/ to believe that I'm the most centrist person on this board.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
I thought it was something like believing in hierarchies would make you more inclined to be authoritarian.mrmooky wrote:Yeah, I'm not sure what the race-based questions are supposed to indicate, either. I don't see how it relates to authoritarianism, social or economic liberalism, or collectivism, so I don't really know which direction racist answers would take you. Guess there's one way to find out.
And... Serious Paul makes Hitler look like a powerpuff girl...?Anguirel wrote:See! I'm centrist!FlameBlade wrote:To make you feel better..you can just move the axes to center of the masses to find who is the most centrist.Salvation122 wrote:I flat out /refuse/ to believe that I'm the most centrist person on this board.
The whole American political system (mainstream, at least), is right-shifted compared to the other western democracies. What passes for "liberal" (I think it's safe to say the term "socialist" was stamped out of the US Politique in the Macarthy years) in the States *might* fall in the "center-right" of other countries' spectrums. Hell, in Canada we still have a Communist party.
Last edited by Spiral on Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
No way. I'd have to see that to believe. Chretien was a born and bred autocrat who patterned (sp?) himself on Trudeau, who was himself a major autocrat. Neither of them liked having other people playing in their sandboxes.mrmooky wrote:Yeah, but look at Paul Martin. He's in the top right corner, albeit close to the origin. Apparently Chretien was in the bottom left.
Paul Martin's placement is no surprise to me. Canada's governing system is very much designed in a "rule-from-the-top" kind of way, which I hope will change at least a little under Martin. Martin's (apparently) known for soliciting opinions throughout the ranks in the private sector, and this will presumably carry over now that's he's in the lead chair.
[edit: *snip* I really have to reign in my multitasking. I'm horrible at keeping track of what I'm posting to lately.
- Anguirel
- Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
- Location: City of Angels
Actually, it isn't... Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a self-proclaimed socialist and serves in the House of Representatives.Spiral wrote:(I think it's safe to say the term "socialist" was stamped out of the US Politique in the Macarthy years)
He's the only Independent in Congress, I think, and he's certainly that exception that proves the rule, but it does show that the concept hasn't entirely been eliminated.Bernie's Bio wrote:In 1981, Bernie's good friend, Richard Sugarman, a University of Vermont philosophy professor, convinced him that if he ran for Mayor of Burlington, the largest city in the state and where Sanders had resided for a number of years -- he could do more than just raise issues: he could win the election. And to the shock of all the pundits, and the consternation of the downtown business community, that's exactly what happened. With overwhelming support from the working class wards, Bernie pulled off one of the biggest political upsets in Vermont's history. Running as an Independent, he defeated the six term Democratic incumbent - by 12 votes! He would go on to win three more terms as Mayor of Burlington, defeating Democratic and Republican candidates. In 1987, he defeated the mayoral candidate that both parties supported.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
Nice graphics, but what does the different dots mean? or don't they have any kind of significance what so ever?
Strangly enough this is the quadrant most of them appears to claim they are in but they never are.mrmooky wrote:Did anyone else notice how few world leaders were in the bottom right quadrant? Struck me as funny, because it would make logical sense that an economic liberal who likely favors small government would also be a social liberal.
- Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
American politics, as seen from abroad.
Jonathan Gatehouse, Macleans.ca wrote:Canadians to Bush: Hope You Lose, Eh
According to a new poll, only 15 per cent of us would vote for the President
JONATHON GATEHOUSE
MAYBE IT'S THAT SMUG LITTLE SMILE. His penchant for fantastically expensive military
photo-ops. Or the swaggering, belt-hitching walk that cries out for a pair of swinging
saloon doors. And though, God knows, we have too many of our own syntactically
challenged politicians to be casting stones, shouldn't the leader of the free world know
that "misunderestimate" isn't a word? Yes, we're cavilling, but clearly there is something
about George W. Bush that gets under the skin of Canadians. After all, vehemently
disagreeing with the policies of American presidents is almost a national pastime. There
has to be another explanation for our extreme reaction, the desire afoot in the land to
see him turfed from office. That and the unprintable sentiment about him and the horse
he rode in on. Even before we know whom he will be running against this fall, Canadians
have made their decision. Only 15 per cent, according to an exclusive new Maclean's
poll, would definitely cast a ballot for Bush if they had the opportunity. And if Americans
remain almost evenly divided -- some 50 per cent approve of his performance in the
White House and he's running neck and neck with his likely Democratic challengers --
there is no such dithering on this side of the border. Just 12 per cent of us feel Canada
is better off since he took office, and only a third of respondents will admit to liking the
world's most powerful man, even just a little bit.
It's an antipathy that appears to extend far beyond our traditional coolness towards
Republicans, says Michael Marzolini, chairman of Pollara Inc., the Toronto-based opinion
research firm that conducted the national survey. With a political spectrum that skews
to the left of America's -- legalized same-sex marriage and the promise of looser
marijuana laws being the most recent, and in some quarters, celebrated examples --
we've generally perceived Democratic presidents as being more in tune with our values.
But where Ronald Reagan and Bush the elder were at least grudgingly respected,
Dubya is decidedly not. Despite a spate of polls showing a broad desire for improved
relations with the United States after the often rocky Chrétien years, there is a sense
that this administration isn't one we want to do business with. "These numbers really
show the difficulty for Paul Martin," says Marzolini, the long-time pollster for the federal
Liberal party. "He has to get closer to the Americans, but he can't get too close to
George Bush. It's a fine balance." The intense sympathy Canadians felt following the
attacks of 9/11 -- something that manifested itself not just in acts of mourning and
charity, but in a willingness to support whatever actions the U.S. deemed necessary --
has dissipated. In its place is a deep dislike of the bellicose new global reality, and a
lingering distrust of Bush's motives.
It's evident even within sight of the frontier. Stopping to take a picture of icy Niagara
Falls on a recent frigid day, Mike Mitreveski tried to explain why he's uneasy about
Bush. "I get a sense that he's in it for himself first and then the country," said the
Windsor, Ont., graduate student. "And I worry that he's doing all of this stuff in Iraq for
the oil industry. He used to be part of it and has lots of high-ranking friends." David
Kowalewski, an engineering consultant from Niagara Falls, Ont., says he initially
supported Bush's foreign policy, but now has grave doubts. "I thought it was noble at
first, but now they've gone security crazy." Life has changed for the worse in his
community, said Kowalewski, citing long delays at the border, and the fallout for local
businesses that depend on tourism.
A trio of physicians taking in the sights on a day off were no kinder to Bush. On sober
reflection, all asked that their names not be used. "Please, someone, teach him how to
pronounce nuclear," said one, a Toronto pediatrician. Another, an American who has
lived on this side of the border for the past 14 years, said she understands why
Canadians dislike so many of Bush's stances, even though she is troubled by the tone of
the debate. A doctor friend from the Netherlands provided a reminder that opinions of
the President are often even harsher abroad. "In Amsterdam," she said, "we think he is
kind of stupid."
ON THE HUMID night in August 2000 when George W. Bush officially became the
Republican nominee for president, the thousands of delegates and reporters packed
into a Philadelphia arena were given a peek at what party strategists planned to sell to
the American people. The beautifully realized infomercial was mostly shots of Bush at his
Crawford, Tex., ranch, tending stock, mending fences, driving a vintage pickup truck
with his spaniel perched on his lap, all the while talking about his vision of a big country
with small-town values. It was a persona lifted straight from a Hollywood Western. The
likeable, soft-talking cowpoke who knows the value of an honest day's work and isn't
afraid to take on the guys in the black hats when the town's in trouble. Reagan
successfully mined the same vein for eight years. And it's an image that continues to
pay dividends for Bush, playing off his folksy, good-natured strengths, and positioning
him as someone who might reasonably be excused for not reading newspapers or
knowing the names of his foreign counterparts. Clearing brush on the back forty is a lot
more man-of-the-people than weekending at the palatial family compound in
Kennebunkport, Me.
But Canadians have never been that comfortable with the type of cowboys who take
the law into their own hands. Our frontier heroes were the scarlet-clad North West
Mounted Police, not lone gunslingers. In a pre-9/11 world, when Bush was vowing to be
a domestic-policy president, it didn't seem to matter that much. But over the past 2 1/2
years, his muscular commitment to protecting and advancing U.S. interests abroad --
unilaterally if allies and international bodies such as the UN fail to sign on -- has
unsettled many around the world. There is a burgeoning cottage industry of writers and
analysts exploring the underpinnings and fallout of this new American "imperialism." In
Canada, a country that has always fretted about being swallowed up, either territorially
or culturally, by the behemoth to the south, the spectre of an expanding American
Empire feeds a deep-seated paranoia. At least for some.
David Frum, the Canadian author and pundit who spent 13 months working as a speech
writer for Bush -- he is credited with co-authorship of the infamous "axis of evil" line --
says he doesn't believe polls that suggest a yawning chasm between American and
Canadian perceptions of the President. "My contention is that the differences are much
less dramatic than they are usually made out to be," he says. And if Bush is held in less
esteem north of the border, adds Frum, it is largely because of the distorted lens the
public sees him through. "The Canadian media have generally taken a very belittling
approach to him. By and large, they do not take the terror problem very seriously, and
they communicate that to public opinion." Canadians might understandably prefer
presidents who are reluctant to flex their global political power, either economically or
militarily, says Frum, but when it comes to things that really matter, we should have the
good grace to at least not stand in the way. "There's no expectation in Washington that
Canada and the U.S. should agree on every issue. But they do, as a friend, expect to
be given the benefit of the doubt on issues that they regard as essential to their
security."
It's a point of view that many Canadians find difficult to swallow, given the dubious
claims of weapons of mass destruction and hostile intentions that fuelled America's foray
into Iraq. (The Maclean's annual year-end poll found that 75 per cent of Canadians
believe Ottawa was right to refuse to commit troops to Iraq, even if it annoyed our
closest trading partner.) Yes, we're friends and neighbours, but with feelings running so
high, there is a danger that our distaste for the leader will spill over to the people he
represents. Clifford Krauss, Canadian correspondent for the New York Times, recently
encountered two young boys on the street outside his Toronto home, holding a sign
that read Honk if you hate President Bush! (This is a school project.) "I was shocked
because of the word hate," says Krauss. "You'd never see a sign like that about Saddam
Hussein, or Slobodan Milosevic." It's a virulent strain of anti-Americanism that the Times
reporter says he encounters more and more frequently. "I've experienced rude and
prejudiced behaviour, just because I'm an American," says Krauss. "I've lived in
countries in Latin America that have tricky relationships with the U.S., but I didn't expect
that sort of thing here."
Truth is, we might well be the ones in need of a dose of perspective. With the Canadian
political landscape now virtually emptied of leaders we feel passionately about -- either
negatively or positively -- we might be guilty of transference. Our growing distaste for
Bush is smug and more than a bit juvenile, argues Reginald Stuart, a Mount Saint
Vincent University expert on U.S.-Canada relations, now in residence at Washington's
Woodrow Wilson International Center. "When the Communists were in power, we dealt
with Russian leaders that we disagreed vehemently with on some very fundamental
issues," he notes. Our worries that the Bush administration, viewed by the bulk of the
Canadian public as overly religious and conservative, will somehow interfere with
progressive social policies in this country (the Maclean's year-end poll identified same-
sex marriage and proposals to relax marijuana laws as new "wellsprings of national
pride") are overblown, says Stuart. In Canada, there is still no surer kiss of death for a
politician than caving into American pressure.
For decades now, we have alternately railed against, and revelled in, the generalized
American ignorance of Canada. At the same time, we have prided ourselves on being
one of our neighbour's harshest critics. At the centre of our relationship is the conceit
that so much of what we produce -- resources, goods, culture, people -- flows south,
that America must really need us. Now, with the U.S. showing a willingness to stand
alone and demand the obeisance due to the last remaining superpower, Canada, like the
rest of the world, is caught up in an uncomfortable new reality. Bush's repeated "with us
or against us" declarations have made it clear that there are new, tougher requirements
for being America's ally. And as long as he remains well-positioned for another four
years in the White House, we may have to do our share of puckering up. Canadians
know that. We just don't have to like it.
Maclean's Article
No significance. Microsoft made them all sorts of different unreadable colors, too, but I fixed that. I left some of the different shapes, in some spots because I'm lazy, and in some spots because it makes it slightly easier to read.Nice graphics, but what does the different dots mean? or don't they have any kind of significance what so ever?
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
- Instant Cash
- Bondsman of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 3:15 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
- Patience
- Bulldrek Pusher
- Posts: 692
- Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: Washington DC
- Contact:
http://celeloriel.livejournal.com/166908.html
Apparently I'm the second-most liberal poster on here, after Veed. So speaketh Sal, anyway.
Apparently I'm the second-most liberal poster on here, after Veed. So speaketh Sal, anyway.
_
<b>Thorn said:</b> Patience really does rock!!
<b>CykoSpin said:</b> Every time I see Patience (that is, a post by Patience), I think of the Iron Maiden song "Can I Play With Madness". I don't really know why, though; for whatever reason, I just do.
<b>Thorn said:</b> Patience really does rock!!
<b>CykoSpin said:</b> Every time I see Patience (that is, a post by Patience), I think of the Iron Maiden song "Can I Play With Madness". I don't really know why, though; for whatever reason, I just do.
- UncleJoseph
- Wuffle Initiate
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 8:32 am
- Location: Central Michigan
- Contact:
Just to revive this in conjunction with the thread about conservatives...
I rated
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31
Closer to the communists than the anarchists... but only just.
I rated
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31
Closer to the communists than the anarchists... but only just.
Geneticists have established that all women share a common ancestor, called Eve, and that all men share a common ancestor, dubbed Adam. However, it has also been established that Adam was born 80.000 years after Eve. So, the world before him was one of heavy to industral strength lesbianism, one assumes.
-Stephen Fry, QI
-Stephen Fry, QI
- Subversive Agent
- Bulldrekker
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:03 pm
- Location: The Void
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.90
Fucking A! I guess I need to vote for Kerry.
Seriously, I was ambivilant towards some of the questions, but I wasn't given a "don't care" option. So fuck that shit:
On Government; I believe gummint should fear the people. Gummint should work to do those things that no single person can do, or could do well. Gummint represents us in the world, but not without our consent. And it needs to stay the fuck outta my private life. Untill I break the law.
Abortion: I'm morally against it in all forms. It's murder. But That's my religious beliefs. Because of this, I don't think it should be illegal. But I will never practice it.
Same-sex marriages: Don't care. I think marriage should be abolished, and made into "social contracts". Allow religions to marry according to their laws. You can't legislate morality.
Economics: Keep an eye on corps if they do bad shit, punish them. Otherwise, I don't care. This is a world to make money. Let us make it.
Military: A strong military in necessary to the security of the state.
etc. I'm a religious conservative, but I feel that that's something I can do, without the gummint telling me to be like that.
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.90
Fucking A! I guess I need to vote for Kerry.
Seriously, I was ambivilant towards some of the questions, but I wasn't given a "don't care" option. So fuck that shit:
On Government; I believe gummint should fear the people. Gummint should work to do those things that no single person can do, or could do well. Gummint represents us in the world, but not without our consent. And it needs to stay the fuck outta my private life. Untill I break the law.
Abortion: I'm morally against it in all forms. It's murder. But That's my religious beliefs. Because of this, I don't think it should be illegal. But I will never practice it.
Same-sex marriages: Don't care. I think marriage should be abolished, and made into "social contracts". Allow religions to marry according to their laws. You can't legislate morality.
Economics: Keep an eye on corps if they do bad shit, punish them. Otherwise, I don't care. This is a world to make money. Let us make it.
Military: A strong military in necessary to the security of the state.
etc. I'm a religious conservative, but I feel that that's something I can do, without the gummint telling me to be like that.
Allahu Akbar
- Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
- Anguirel
- Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
- Location: City of Angels
Can we also add it to "Who We Are" as a picture-link to the original website? I think this shows who we are almost as well as anything else, and it would be kinda cool to have easily available.
And in theory I could whip up the graph, I suppose, and drop it in my album. Not like I'm using the space for anything else... If Marius doesn't have it around still, I'll go through the thread and see how much Excel I remember.
And in theory I could whip up the graph, I suppose, and drop it in my album. Not like I'm using the space for anything else... If Marius doesn't have it around still, I'll go through the thread and see how much Excel I remember.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
I don't. I seem to have lost the file.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
- Anguirel
- Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
- Location: City of Angels
Liberal and Conservative Democrats are European terms, I believe. They are not referring to groups within the US Party called the Democrats. I should have a picture up in an hour or two, assuming I can make my computer behave and I don't, you know, wander off to watch a movie or something.Buzzed wrote:I think they are a bit off with the dot that they place for Liberal Democrats. They got that dot confused with Conservative Democrats. The site obviously just doesn't want to admit that a large chunk of democrats are conservative.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
- Instant Cash
- Bondsman of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 3:15 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Heh heh. You're a frickin' communist.Buzzed wrote:Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.72
More specifically, they're speaking of the British party named the Liberal Democrats, who are, rather to my liking, reasonably conservative. Not quite conservative enough, but then, who is?Liberal and Conservative Democrats are European terms, I believe. They are not referring to groups within the US Party called the Democrats.I think they are a bit off with the dot that they place for Liberal Democrats. They got that dot confused with Conservative Democrats. The site obviously just doesn't want to admit that a large chunk of democrats are conservative.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.