On Politics...
-
Normally I would drop this in the soapbox, but since politics is on everyone's mind today, I'll post here. Obviouslly many CPians have heartfelt political conviction, but I myself am neither hard-core right-wing, nor do I support higly liberal issues. That puts me in the middle of a moral dilemma: Do I vote Republican (although some democratic views have my support), or do I vote Democrat and forgo my Republican affiliation??? Truth be said, there are times I hear so much negative publicity about individual candidates that I wish Jerry Springer were on the ballot. So I set out to weigh the facts about the hot issues as objectively as possible. Taking the following test: http://issues2002.org/politics/quiz_main.asp?Page=1&Clear=Y[^] I was able to get an objective view of my preferences. However, I turned out 54% conservative and 46% liberal :omg: What do you guys do when you are divided on the issues, and don't really like either candidate? (or am I just a fluke in the democratic system :~ ) Nitron _________________________________________-- message sent on 100% recycled electrons.
I hear that Arnold Shazzanigger <-- Spelling Is running for Governer in California and I am going to vote for him, can't be worst than what we got :laugh:
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: 1. Do you or your government support or harbor international terrorists? And do those terrorists intend to strike against the US or allies. If no , don't worry Mike Mullikin wrote: 2. Do you or your government plan to invade and occupy neighboring countries? Does your country or any of those neighbouring countries have interesting natural resources ? If no don't worry Mike Mullikin wrote: 3. Do you or your government build and use chemical weapons against small ethnic groups in your country? Can your country classify them as dangerous terrorists ? If yes don't worry Mike Mullikin wrote: 4. Do you or your government routinely kill your political foes and those who spaek against you? Can those foes be classified as terrorists or supporters of terrorism? If yes don't worry Mike Mullikin wrote: 5. Do you or your government defy UN resolutions that you agreed to a decade ago? Does your government have the backing of the US when ignoring those resolutions ? If yes don't worry. Mike Mullikin wrote: 6. Have you or your government deliberately pissed off the most powerful military in the history of the world by killing 3000 innocent civilians in a matter of minutes? Did your country receive US military aid before/during/after such incidents ? If yes don't worry.
William De Prêtre wrote: And do those terrorists intend to strike against the US or allies. If no , don't worry I would think that the intended target countries would be interested in these terrorists so the US/UK need not be involved. William De Prêtre wrote: Does your country or any of those neighbouring countries have interesting natural resources ? If no don't worry Interestingly, country A rarely invades country B in the first place if country B is lacking natural resources - so this point is moot. William De Prêtre wrote: Can your country classify them as dangerous terrorists ? If yes don't worry William De Prêtre wrote: Can those foes be classified as terrorists or supporters of terrorism? If yes don't worry One country's freedom fighters are another's terrorists. Each country makes its decision based on it's current perspective - how else can any decision be made? William De Prêtre wrote: Does your government have the backing of the US when ignoring those resolutions ? If yes don't worry. If the UN had any backbone at all they would point out these occasions and do something about it. William De Prêtre wrote: Did your country receive US military aid before/during/after such incidents ? If yes don't worry There are very few countries remaining that have not recieved US military aid at one time or another so again this point is moot. Look I'm not really trying to justify all of the US actions over the last 50 years - or even it's current ones. Paul just surprised me when he wrote such a paranoid post.
Mike Mullikin :beer: Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. David St. Hubbins - Spinal Tap
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Damn Paul, why so paranoid? What are you people doing down there in SA that you fear the US/UK?? Not really paranoid. Just a matter of realising that there according to the leader of a nation armed to the teeth there are only two options. Follow their lead or die. If you are not with him all the way, you are the Enemy (even if that Enemy is your enemy as well but you happen to have a different opinion about defeating him)
William De Prêtre wrote: you happen to have a different opinion about defeating him Amen William! Here comes the cavalry. Thanks for the support Mr. De Prêtre.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson -
Mike Mullikin wrote: Damn Paul, why so paranoid? What are you people doing down there in SA that you fear the US/UK?? Not really paranoid. Just a matter of realising that there according to the leader of a nation armed to the teeth there are only two options. Follow their lead or die. If you are not with him all the way, you are the Enemy (even if that Enemy is your enemy as well but you happen to have a different opinion about defeating him)
William De Prêtre wrote: Not really paranoid. Just a matter of realising that there according to the leader of a nation armed to the teeth there are only two options. Follow their lead or die. If you are not with him all the way, you are the Enemy (even if that Enemy is your enemy as well but you happen to have a different opinion about defeating him) Bush is a Texan. Texans tend to dramatize things. France, Russia and China aren't exactly helping things along in the UN right now as far as Bush is concerned but we're not bombing them. Where has the US actually threatened anybody with "actively help us or we'll kill you"? That's total BS and you know it. Apparently Texans aren't the only ones who dramatize...
Mike Mullikin :beer: Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation. David St. Hubbins - Spinal Tap
-
Normally I would drop this in the soapbox, but since politics is on everyone's mind today, I'll post here. Obviouslly many CPians have heartfelt political conviction, but I myself am neither hard-core right-wing, nor do I support higly liberal issues. That puts me in the middle of a moral dilemma: Do I vote Republican (although some democratic views have my support), or do I vote Democrat and forgo my Republican affiliation??? Truth be said, there are times I hear so much negative publicity about individual candidates that I wish Jerry Springer were on the ballot. So I set out to weigh the facts about the hot issues as objectively as possible. Taking the following test: http://issues2002.org/politics/quiz_main.asp?Page=1&Clear=Y[^] I was able to get an objective view of my preferences. However, I turned out 54% conservative and 46% liberal :omg: What do you guys do when you are divided on the issues, and don't really like either candidate? (or am I just a fluke in the democratic system :~ ) Nitron _________________________________________-- message sent on 100% recycled electrons.
32/58. Not guite as right wing as I thought I was apparently. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Paul Watson wrote: I was just commenting on that in my world there are only two countries that matter, the US and the UK. That often the rest of us are not represented or listened to. Its kind of funny that you think that, because let me count....11 out of 28 people I work with in my part of the department at work, are South African. A further 2 from Zimbabwe, 2 from Australia, 1 from NZ, 1 from Nigeria, 2 German and 1 Italian. Makes for some interesting stories and different points of view. I often hear the SA people talking about home, and how they think the current President is not up the job. I suppose Mandela was a hard act to follow with him having such a good international reputation. I can guess at how you feel - can't really get away from the US media, and am glad that in the UK we have something like the BBC to report news that does not come of Mr Murdocks empire for a change. The French are quite luck in thise sense with things like state sponsorship for French speaking films/movies. I suppose its just the sheer weight of numbers thing. Saying that its clear to see that the European Union (some fool wants to call it the United States of Europe) has much more infulence on our daily lives, I think more so than the US. Just beacase we are closer, despite the language dis-advantage. But saying that I like French films - because they are so clearly not hollywood. I think my mind is drifting on to other topics. Paul Watson wrote: Oh and I was reading a story in Time about Bush and his defining people into two camps. Yep but thats sadly how he thinks, Yes or No. He would make a terrible ambassador.
Giles wrote: I suppose its just the sheer weight of numbers thing. That is definitely a factor. The US can just throw so much shit at you that all you can do is spend your time reacting, fending off, not constructing, not progressing. Even if the shit does not stick or even if it could never stick, it is still being thrown, still coming at you. Giles wrote: Its kind of funny that you think that, because let me count....11 out of 28 people I work with in my part of the department at work, are South African. A further 2 from Zimbabwe, 2 from Australia, 1 from NZ, 1 from Nigeria, 2 German and 1 Italian. Sure but they actually do not represent my country anymore. They are becoming representative of the country they live in. SA could implode and they would be sad yes but not really affected. (Obviously there is some representation... just like Arabs living in America are affected by their "home" countries even though they may not represent the countrys actions)... Anyway, a bit late to think straight, need sleep... drifting onto all sorts of topics :) Giles wrote: He would make a terrible ambassador. Yet here he is, head of the US, representative of the United States of America, voted there by it's citizens. Makes me wonder is he a false representative or a frightentingly true representative?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson -
Giles wrote: I suppose its just the sheer weight of numbers thing. That is definitely a factor. The US can just throw so much shit at you that all you can do is spend your time reacting, fending off, not constructing, not progressing. Even if the shit does not stick or even if it could never stick, it is still being thrown, still coming at you. Giles wrote: Its kind of funny that you think that, because let me count....11 out of 28 people I work with in my part of the department at work, are South African. A further 2 from Zimbabwe, 2 from Australia, 1 from NZ, 1 from Nigeria, 2 German and 1 Italian. Sure but they actually do not represent my country anymore. They are becoming representative of the country they live in. SA could implode and they would be sad yes but not really affected. (Obviously there is some representation... just like Arabs living in America are affected by their "home" countries even though they may not represent the countrys actions)... Anyway, a bit late to think straight, need sleep... drifting onto all sorts of topics :) Giles wrote: He would make a terrible ambassador. Yet here he is, head of the US, representative of the United States of America, voted there by it's citizens. Makes me wonder is he a false representative or a frightentingly true representative?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul WatsonPaul Watson wrote: That is definitely a factor. The US can just throw so much sh*t at you that all you can do is spend your time reacting, fending off, not constructing, not progressing. Even if the sh*t does not stick or even if it could never stick, it is still being thrown, still coming at you. You can run, but you can't hide. Sady that has never sounded truer. :( Paul Watson wrote: Makes me wonder is he a false representative or a frightentingly true representative? Probably true, considering they had to sue each other to get into power. Don't know if I should :laugh: or :((
-
Normally I would drop this in the soapbox, but since politics is on everyone's mind today, I'll post here. Obviouslly many CPians have heartfelt political conviction, but I myself am neither hard-core right-wing, nor do I support higly liberal issues. That puts me in the middle of a moral dilemma: Do I vote Republican (although some democratic views have my support), or do I vote Democrat and forgo my Republican affiliation??? Truth be said, there are times I hear so much negative publicity about individual candidates that I wish Jerry Springer were on the ballot. So I set out to weigh the facts about the hot issues as objectively as possible. Taking the following test: http://issues2002.org/politics/quiz_main.asp?Page=1&Clear=Y[^] I was able to get an objective view of my preferences. However, I turned out 54% conservative and 46% liberal :omg: What do you guys do when you are divided on the issues, and don't really like either candidate? (or am I just a fluke in the democratic system :~ ) Nitron _________________________________________-- message sent on 100% recycled electrons.
As suggested I strongly suggest you ignore the parties and vote for whom you believe will be the best and support your beliefs. As Ed K said, we in Texas had a real problem with our choice for Governor. The conservative (of which I am definitely on that side, so I usually vote for the Republican candidate, but not blindly so) just a few years ago (10?) was Al Gore's Texas campaign chairman and the liberal candidate supported G.W. for both Gov. and Pres. SO WHICH one? Neither can be really standing for their beliefs. Nitron wrote: What do you guys do when you are divided on the issues, and don't really like either candidate? (or am I just a fluke in the democratic system ) No you are no fluke, this is just really hard at times. In my case I finally picked the one I thought had the most integrity. (Even though both scores were very low.)
-
And if you live in the UK http://www.politicalcompass.org/[^]
Heh. I was about to reply with ASSERT( everyone == american ) :-D -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
And if you live in the UK http://www.politicalcompass.org/[^]
Intriguing stuff - here's my result[^]: Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Authoritarian/Libertarian: -5.90 ...which puts me firmly in the left wing of the libertarians, and a long way from the philosophies of even the current government. Having said that, the questions asked as a little binary ("it depends" is often a valid answer :laugh: ) so at the end of the day you have to take each issue as it comes and follow your instincts. :) Anna :rose: "Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch -
Nitron wrote: _http://issues2002.org/politics/quiz\_main.asp?Page=1&Clear=Y\[^\]_ My kodak moment result Says I am Personal Score of 70% and Economic Score of 54%. Not even being an American I still found the questions interesting. The explanation of what opposed/for meant for each question was great.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote:
Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul WatsonPersonal Score 22% Economic Score 39% Apparently, I'm an authoritarian. Riiiight.. Ok then! [EDIT] But if i go back a change 2 answers, i'm suddenly Personal Score 66% Economic Score 54% Which is COMPLETELY different from my initial score. :wtf: [/EDIT] That's why I ramble so much. If you're short and quotable, there's a much greater danger of ending up in a sig. [Christopher Duncan on how to prevent yourself from ending up in a sig]
-
Intriguing stuff - here's my result[^]: Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Authoritarian/Libertarian: -5.90 ...which puts me firmly in the left wing of the libertarians, and a long way from the philosophies of even the current government. Having said that, the questions asked as a little binary ("it depends" is often a valid answer :laugh: ) so at the end of the day you have to take each issue as it comes and follow your instincts. :) Anna :rose: "Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschI'm not a labour or lib dem supporter, but would probably be a conservative supporter if they were not so useless. I came out about -3, -3, which is certainly not where I would have placed myself. But then its says something about your age. Some of those things where about sexual orientation or religion, and I believe the younger generations are more liberal in these areas. Anna :) wrote: Having said that, the questions asked as a little binary ("it depends" is often a valid answer ) so at the end of the day you have to take each issue as it comes and follow your instincts. Some were also vauge, and could have multiple interpretations with respect to the law. While in certain cases I thought I would agree, I would not put the statement itself into law, as it would also appy to things that it should not. I also wondered how the stats were done. I would like to think that it was in relation to other people who had taken the poll, rather than just been scored a fixed mark for each question.
-
I'm not a labour or lib dem supporter, but would probably be a conservative supporter if they were not so useless. I came out about -3, -3, which is certainly not where I would have placed myself. But then its says something about your age. Some of those things where about sexual orientation or religion, and I believe the younger generations are more liberal in these areas. Anna :) wrote: Having said that, the questions asked as a little binary ("it depends" is often a valid answer ) so at the end of the day you have to take each issue as it comes and follow your instincts. Some were also vauge, and could have multiple interpretations with respect to the law. While in certain cases I thought I would agree, I would not put the statement itself into law, as it would also appy to things that it should not. I also wondered how the stats were done. I would like to think that it was in relation to other people who had taken the poll, rather than just been scored a fixed mark for each question.
Giles wrote: I'm not a labour or lib dem supporter, but would probably be a conservative supporter if they were not so useless. I came out about -3, -3, which is certainly not where I would have placed myself. But then its says something about your age. Some of those things where about sexual orientation or religion, and I believe the younger generations are more liberal in these areas. I know the feeling! I certainly wouldn't have placed myself as far left as that test did...though I have to say I'm probably more outspoken (but less idealistic) than I used to be. A lot of that is a result of my unhappiness with the things I see wrong in our society (corporate and indvidual greed and the "me first" attitude are number one on the list), tempered by the knowledge that we haven't yet found an alternative which works with human nature. :(( I guess I'm a people-centric pragmatist at the end of the day. :) As far as the questions regarding sexual/religious views go, my perspective as a Transsexual Christian probably biases the results well to the left. ;) Giles wrote: Some were also vauge, and could have multiple interpretations with respect to the law. While in certain cases I thought I would agree, I would not put the statement itself into law, as it would also appy to things that it should not. Very much so. Giles wrote: I also wondered how the stats were done. I would like to think that it was in relation to other people who had taken the poll, rather than just been scored a fixed mark for each question. Ideally yes, but I doubt it would be workable in practice. It doesn't promote consistancy, since the same answers give different results over time. The more questions and the more specific they are, the more consistant the results will be, but it's difficult to get right. One of the gender tests I did (the COGIATTI test on www.transsexual.org[^]) has 65 questions, and I've found the results pretty consistant over time. Anna :rose: "Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch
