...the conservative that liberals hate to love...
I took this one once too, but the little thermometer throws off my profile, so I didn't post it. I was the exact same as you.jr
Oh justrose, you're a poet, you can't be defined by mere politics! Or where you fall on the spectrum, (politically speaking) We are all so lucky to be reading the rowhouse for free. And I know getting something for "free" makes Ala71 mad, because she equates that with socialism, but I also know you guys are friends, so you FIND a way to work things out. hahahahaI have so much fun here, in blogland......
JFM -Funny you mention that as I have been contimplating Google ads to my site...hahaha...Big and Mean send me a GREAT definition of 'Justice' that should behoove all you liberals to think through your positions..."The Hebrew word for charity is tzedakah, which actually means justice.In judaism, charity is considered unjust if it makes the recipientdependant, thus the only true charity seeks to do justice by helpingthe recipient to become self-sufficient."Hence the name of my son and the whole of my beliefs...
JFMYes, you are right--I am a moralist in disguise; it gets me into heaps of trouble when I go thrashing around in political questions.-Mark Twain
Surprise surprise. My results were exactly the same!!!!
It says I'm a LIBERAL!But then, there weren't any foreign policy questions, and not a whole lot on economics; just social issues.I like this test better.On that one I'm slightly in the bottom right quadrant, where I see myself to be.
Ala - ShalomRose- never the *twain* shall meet.btw when the *sounders* on the river reached the end of their rope, they would yell out, "no bottom!"
Great, I'm a conservative nut job like my wife.
CSM -- I took that test (flunked GRE and other things containing graphs) but I was on the LEFT side, right on the line, four lines to the left. Not sure what that meant, but cool test! Yet far too complicated for my apolitical brain ....and understood what they meant, about how life isn't all just left and right. Some really interesting questions on it too, thanks --JFM -- LOL! I'm no match for your wit and general knowledge of things maritime and worldly. And yet, for politics and anything else, I believe this to be true:You have brains in your head.You have feet in your shoes.You can steer yourselfany direction you choose. You're on your own. And you know what you know. And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go....-Dr. Seussjr
Cig: That test was pretty cool...I was Right -Authoritarian (same quadrant as Hitler LOL -but same EXACT SPOT on the graph as TONY BLAIR -yeah!)
ALa and Justrose, I think the ideal test would put it in three dimensions:1) Economics2) Social Restriction/Unrestriction3) Foreign PolicyThree dimensions, eight parties. :PI'm for free market economics, minimal social restriction, and hawkish foreign policy. Libertarian Hawk.
Tesco,Great, I'm the same as your wife too.
Like father, like daughter; or is it the other way around!
Rock solid moderate, no surprise to me - just to you.
Paul, that makes me more "liberal" than you! LOL!
Paul: I hope that you honestly didn't take my 'song' seriously (in the last post) as being mean! I have taken a pounding on this site and I don't think I've ever been (intentionally) mean to anyone in return...COMPASSIONATE conservative remember:)...some of you libs are just way too sensitive...I guess us right wing nut jobs are used to the abuse so we have much thicker skin...LOLEveryone: You should take the test that Cig listed above...it's much cooler (and more accurate) than the one that I have linked here!
I retook the test to get my exact numbers:Economic Left/Right: 5.12Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59I'm farther to the right economically than I thought, and not as stalwartly libertarian as I thought, as opposed to authoritarian, according to this test, but it's close enough.
Cig: Wow...you are like three lines further to the right than I am! Imagine that! :) I guess it's the thinking being gay is genetic and thinking that marijuana should be legal that did it...shhhhh...I can't dissapoint the lefties! haha...
It said I was (drum roll) Ta da! Conservative! I know you are all shocked and awed. Like JustRose the graphic washed out too much of my terribly relevant prose, so I didn't post it.Then I went through and changed a couple of questions that I was flip flopping on, and turned into a liberal.Then I went and read all the possibilities, and based on what I read, it appears that the liberals and the conservatives are the only ones that effect change in our society. The far left and far right are too argumentative to accomplish anything, and the moderates too apathetic! And there you have it. fb
Well remember, the right-left axis in that graph is a purely economic one: taxes, regulation, etc.I too think that there is at least some sort of a natural mutation process that goes on which flips a toggle switch in a baby's DNA sometime before birth and causes homosexuality. My personal theory on that is that population density causes it as a natural mechanism toward reducing it. (Note that densely populated cities have a high percentage of gay people, while out in the country there is less memetic tolerance of it--more room for a population to grow, and less toggle switches getting flipped by ma nature to non-breeding status.)And I go farther than just marijuana--I think all drugs should be legalized. Let's remove these industries from their tax-exempt status, and individuals dumb enough to fall into the addictive behavioral traps presented by the drugs, well, they get weeded out of the gene pool. Nice and darwinian. Treat 'em all like alcohol.But that's the up/down scale on the graph, and while I have some beliefs that are very radically libertarian, I also recognize the need for some law and order in some areas some of the time.Speaking of libertarian, did you guys hear that Michael Badnarik got arrested at the "debate" the other night? He was trying to serve papers to the Democrat and Republican parties, for his lawsuit to get included in the debate, as he is on 48 of 50 state ballots this year. A presidential candidate gets arrested instead of included in a debate.Y'know, if it WEREN'T for Badnarik's utterly moronic position on the Iraq war, I'd continue in my lifelong tradition of voting Libertarian this time around, but for now, I'll just have to wish him luck.
Cig: Ok...here are my thoughts on the legalization of all drugs...I think it's a bad idea. My mom is an ICU nurse and I constantly hear stories of all the overdose patients that come in -they are brain dead -their families won't admit it -they insist on keeping this vegetable alive on machines -their insurance runs out and bada-bing WE the taxpayers are paying for this waste of live to lay there for years to come. This would really increase if these hard core drugs were readily available. Pot is different -though I don't partake because it makes me feel terrible -but I have many friends that smoke and function perfectly in their lives...I have seen friends wake-n-bake and ace advanced physics tests. Legalizing marijuana will not have those draining monetary effects on the economy and will probably have positive effects in the tax revenue and 'new farmer'(LOL) revenue it would create.Was that at all coherent?
Cig: have been a fan of Libertarianism (whew) since 1975 and like many of their stands. Does it seem to you that the party is often populated by less than serious citizens (nutty). Anyway as far as Drug Legalization I am 100% there.Ala: If your ONLY objection to legalization is the overdose thing then legalization is the SOLUTION. The reason why heroin addicts OD is cause of the wide flucuations in the strength of the drug on the street. Interestingly, when an addict OD's, other addicts try to find out where they bought the dope and try to get it for themselves (cause its more pure). I have had one dear friend and two aquaintances OD (die) form heroin and remain convinced if it was legal it would never have happened. Legalization would mean less government (Right) and more taxes and less hospitalization. Most people are unaware that a Heroin addict can function in society as long as they have access to uncut (ie safer) heroin and clean needles. Like cig said, if you want to poison yourself, well, the gene pool will be better off without you.
Arrrgh.........I am a liberal. (But tolerant) I cant understand how i came up liberal with my answers. 2 ticks left of moderate. Oh, now i member, no death penalty and gay is OK. Ala: just so you know, I am putting a Bush/Cheney sign on my lawn as pennance.
ALa, you know me, I'm a plug-puller when it comes to the brain dead. But if I can't get anyone to start pulling plugs when a vast avalanche of them start showing up at the hospital, from drugs, then maybe the expense of prison might just slip in under the expense of life support by a few bucks--I'm not sure. And in that case then yes, imprison the stupid before they cost us even more in medical way. BUT, I will continue to lobby for plug-pulling, and if I pull it off (no pun intended) then bodda bang bodda bing, LEGALIZE, baby. Every last one of those substances. Plug-pull, plug-pull, plug-pull, all the way. They had their chance to be real people back before they started taking the drugs.Riceburner, I've met a lot of hella smart people in the Libertarian party, and yes, a few slightly off-balance people too (Art Bell himself is a Libertarian), but when it comes to foriegn policy they sometimes lapse in their smartness. Badnarik "if elected" would pull troops out of Iraq as soon as safely possible (three to six months), regardless of the state in which that would leave Iraq. Not too bright, given that an early pullout would leave the place to be taken over by Islamofascists, get setup as a terrorist enclave and we would just have to go back and invade again later after one of them does another 9/11 type bit over here.I say do a lot of this type of stuff and when they stop pouring out of the mosques raving about "Jihad", then, as Master Po said to Quai Chang Kane, It will be time for us to leave. (After getting dragons branded on our forearms and such.)
AAAARRRGGGHHHH!! It says I'm radical right! I don't believe any of the shit I've been saying.
Jericho...are you serious? Did you take the one I posted or the link that Cig put up? hahaha! I knew it...your too funny to be a lib!
What a shock...I am conservative!
I liked Cigs test. I ended up on the other side, libertarian left together with Nelson Mandela. (Kinda cool.)On Ala71's test in this post I was a liberal. Big deal. Am I ostracized here now?
Cigman, the test you posted is the same as ALa71s, isn't it?I was a liberal libertarian. Hmmm... but pretty close to the middle. Guess I'm wishy washy, or just pragmatic.
MarsAttacks...all are welcome! :)
Smoker's test kicks total ass. And yeah, Ala, I was just joking. As for Smoker's test, it grouped me with Mandela, Ghandi and the Dalai Lama. Which is wierd considering the pro-war stance I took on those questions. But as far as the humanistic, social aspects, that's pretty good company if you ask me. I just wanna know which of you said 1) prison should be for punishment and 2)People with certain genetic deiseases shouldn't be ALLOWED to reproduce
Jericho: I said 'strongly agree to both of them... what's it to ya!? LOL...seriously I did though. Prison IS for punishment and I don't think retarded people etc. should be pro-creating...
Yeah, ALa, I kinda figured that'd be the case. What it is to me is that except for the most extreme cases such as rape and murder or child molestation, the majority of people in prison are going to see the light of day again and too often prison turns them into worse people than they were when they went in. So I'm for prison being a rehab environment for all but the most serious cases because one day we're going to have to live with them again. That's my two cents on that.On the reproduction issue, I can't say I'm surprised by your answer though it totally contradicts your Republican ethos of less government. You would honestly have the government regulate who could and could not reproduce?! That's just shocking to me. And I don't even think that question specifically refers to retarded people. I think it's mainly about people with genetic proclivities toward Lou Gehrig's Disease and sickle cell and shit like that. Ah, ALa, you're an enigma wrapped in a contradiction.
Post a Comment