Fast Political Test

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Oh I see!

So in essence, it is the idea that one could be so conservative on some topics, that one ends up liberal or libertarian on others as an automatic, and unavoidable result, and back the other way as well?

Interesting theory! I think it matches up quite well with some of the things we see from western governments these days, if not governments all over the world.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Oh I see!

So in essence, it is the idea that one could be so conservative on some topics, that one ends up liberal or libertarian on others as an automatic, and unavoidable result, and back the other way as well?

Interesting theory! I think it matches up quite well with some of the things we see from western governments these days, if not governments all over the world.

Considering we live in an ocean of emotional and political tides that may change on a daily basis by the media we are manipulated by?

Yea, that's why I try to just scream "freedom" all the time and get people to realize how important it is to them, and to think before they allow themselves to fall into the political trap of wanting to take away others freedoms?

Maybe my problem is, I am making it too simple? Maybe I should try to isolate certain groups and I would get a larger following? /that was sarcasm

a reply to: TrueBrit

That's one half of it. The other half is that extremism is extremism, with the only differences being the underlying motivations. Terrorism vs the US bombing civilian villages in Iraq would be a good (albeit extreme) example, I suppose. The end result is identical (Innocent deaths), it is the rationale which is grossly different. The theory is that is a perfect control group, judged by people who have absolutely NO opinions on the justifications or motivations, it would be difficult for those judges to tell the difference between the two extremes.

I'm a liberal.

Right on the Libertarian line.

I'll let you guess which line. A woman has to retain some mystery

ETA: I only took this because I'm stuck at work waiting and it was a way to kill a second. Isn't this really too small a sampling of questions to really pinpoint a person with any real accuracy? Maybe not....

originally posted by: neo96
For those that said YES to this don't think about social programs that IS corporate welfare.

Like SS,medicare,medicaid,food stamps, and education,healthcare that's all corporate welfare.

I don't see the 'iiberal's ever wanting to cut those.

Well I doubt that many liberals are happy that corporations make unfair profit over social services. Social services should be administrated by the government with WELFARE in mind and not PROFITS. That's the liberal/socialist way. A unhealthy population is not a productive population. Socialism should be the backbone of capitalism to evade recessions, not that the super rich want this...

Anyway, I'm sure you already understand what they mean by corporate welfare and why it's a separate opinion in this short test.

a reply to: cavtrooper7



Joking

originally posted by: theMediator
Socialism should be the backbone of capitalism to evade recessions

I disagree.

I'm leaning towards Anarchy!!!

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: neo96
For those that said YES to this don't think about social programs that IS corporate welfare.

Like SS,medicare,medicaid,food stamps, and education,healthcare that's all corporate welfare.

I don't see the 'iiberal's ever wanting to cut those.

Well I doubt that many liberals are happy that corporations make unfair profit over social services. Social services should be administrated by the government with WELFARE in mind and not PROFITS. That's the liberal/socialist way. A unhealthy population is not a productive population. Socialism should be the backbone of capitalism to evade recessions, not that the super rich want this...

Anyway, I'm sure you already understand what they mean by corporate welfare and why it's a separate opinion in this short test.

Ya just proved Burdmans Horseshoe theory.

Not so much of a theory.

A fact of life.

a reply to: sirlancelot

These tests are always frustrating because they always deal way too much in absolutes and you can tell what the bias of the test writer is from how the questions are written.

And it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know about myself - right-leaning libertarian.

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

HEY man ,THEIR test...

a reply to: theMediator

So basically, you want the productive to produce as much as they can so that your government can confiscate it to distribute it as they see fit?

Do you not understand that the best and most productive societies and economies are the ones in which the people can be secure in their persons and possessions?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

HEY man ,THEIR test...

I guess you can break down intelligence into a simple sample. Easier isn't always better. Spell check has ruined my life.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: theMediator

So basically, you want the productive to produce as much as they can so that your government can confiscate it to distribute it as they see fit?

Absolutely not...I just think that having social services with profits being the goal is counter productive to society in general. For example, cancer shouldn't be profitable. Temporarily sick people should be viewed like a burden on society, sickness isn't beneficial to the individual, to his family and people around him. The government should "confiscate" just enough to keep the system working optimally and not a penny more.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Do you not understand that the best and most productive societies and economies are the ones in which the people can be secure in their persons and possessions?

The only thing I understand is your opinion.

a reply to: theMediator

Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it. "Liberty and Democracy" in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America's Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35

en.wikiquote.org...

Liberal comes from the word liberty.

It use to mean FREEDOM.

Doesn't mean that today though.

a reply to: theMediator

Put simply - Why bother to work your hardest to produce if you accrue no rewards for your efforts?

In a perfectly socialist society you own nothing and all your efforts belong to the state so you can bust your butt on the line all day putting in your best effort only to earn exactly as much as the slacker down the way who only puts out the minimum necessary to get the same as you.

What incentive is there to do any more than you must?

Why would you ever try to develop anything new? You get no recognition for it as your discovery is the property of the state, not you. You get nothing more to reward you than the same thing as the lab monkey who just jockeys test tubes in state tests all day.

There is no reason to produce.

originally posted by: Badgered1
Liberal edging a little toward Libertarian.

I always thought I was a filthy bleeding-heart liberal, socialist-leaning, atheist progressive.
I'm not a commie, though. I know the difference.

You do realize communism is just a little left of socialism and at some point the commies take out the socialist?!?!

Meh,I Got Centrist..
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 70%
Your ECONOMICS issues Score is 60%