Where do you fall on Political Spectrum? (Take the Test)

[BigBuddhaPup]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire



Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.44


Economic Left and Social Libertarian... not a big surprise...

[Jaguar Rick]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire



Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -Social Libertarian/Authoritarian:

Economic Left and Social Libertarian... not a big surprise...

Economic Left/Right -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -5.33
ditto

[Dublin Mike]

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77

I always claim to be a fence straddler, but wow. Almost dead center on the board.

[Cure]

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

Interesting...

[Richard the Lionheart]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10

I've done this one before. I think the results were somewhat the same. I'm a little more economically free-market than the poll results indicate. I don't like corporations, and there were a lot of questions on those, and I also answered the questions according to my personal beliefs, and didn't take into account what I believed the Federal Government has the legal power to do. Had I answered that way, my score probably would have been somewhat higher.

[catman]

Here is my score:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10

[catman]

Here is my wife's score:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46

[Jaguar Rick]

Here is my wife's score:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46

catman, Listen to your wife a little more often.:o

[themush]

Man I don't know what any of this means but:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.46

Someone explain my results please.

[BurghGuy]

Economic Left/Right: 4.10
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.50

Seems about right. Conservative on economic issues and fairly middle of the road on social issues.

[Montrovant]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.38

As with all these types of polls, the questions are often weighted, so that your answers may not quite jibe with your beliefs. But it's all in fun, so :)

[Ellis]

Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41

Libertarian Left. My dot is close to Gandhi's and The Dalai Lama's :thumbup:

[catman]

catman, Listen to your wife a little more often.:o

If you notice, mine isn't far from hers.

[da12ken]

Economic Left/Right: -3.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.38

I'll pull a mush and plead ignorance.

[The Pirate Bob]

Okay I will bite, even though I despise the use of political labels mainly because most of us really don't understand their true politcal depth, historical meaning, and social and economic implications.

But maybe this little test is based on more historically accurate understanding of those terms.

I like the honesty of some of you who stated you don't really understand it all. You would have to be a student of political philosophy to fully grasp it. Hopefully I can get into that in the online Civics course I am developing now.

Thanks for the link to that, BigBuddha. Whatever makes people think!

Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03

[KevinBeane]

Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -7.44

[HibachiDG]

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.64

[Ravana]

Economic Right: 2.00
Social Libertarian: -6.05

Frankly, I was surprised I wasn't farther to the right on economics... which makes me wonder about the strength of the survey. Ah well....

[RavenPoe]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

Surprise surprise, I'm a radical leftist! :thumbup:

[Alex]

Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.97

[York Hunt]

Economic Left/Right: 5.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.15

economic freedom is almost always beneficial.

people get too idealist and emotional about certain issues.

freedom is best.

most people forget that the luxuries of the rich are often eventaully produced more cheaply and then made available to the masses.

if there was no rich elite to buy expensive things, they would never be developed and the lower classes would not benefit.

Do you think dirt poor people would have come up with the microwave oven? Vaccines? cell phones?

Please. Having a rich segment of society is beneficial for everybody.

but no...people are pissed and jealous.....

memo: save money and get rich, morons.

this board is full of socialists.

it seems you'd rather everybody be poor than some rich, some poor, and a HUGE middle class.

American liberalism is a complete sham

[themush]

if there was no rich elite to buy expensive things, they would never be developed and the lower classes would not benefit.

Do you think dirt poor people would have come up with the microwave oven? Vaccines? cell phones?

Please. Having a rich segment of society is beneficial for everybody.

but no...people are pissed and jealous.....

memo: save money and get rich, morons.



I have one question before I embarrass your ass on this board. Are you serious with these comments? I really hope not.

Also change your screen name if you want people to take you seriously.

[York Hunt]

I have one question before I embarrass your ass on this board. Are you serious with these comments? I really hope not.

Also change your screen name if you want people to take you seriously.

Who cares what my nic is?

Also, how do you plan on embarrassing me?

I find that liberals get pissed when confronted with the truth. You can't control the truth, so you lash out like a todddler who can't fit Thomas the Train back on the track properly after it falls off.

you're posting on a computer that was developed ONLY BECAUSE some rich folks/corporations made them. Your internet connection is working because businesses were able to develop without government restraint the technology necessary to make it work.

if the government stepped in a told IBM that they were getting too rich and to give some profits away instead of investing in R& D do you think we'd be on the internet having this discussion? The answer is of course "no."

a rich elite is necessary for a high standard of living, there's just no other way.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Economic Right: 2.00
Social Libertarian: -6.05

Frankly, I was surprised I wasn't farther to the right on economics... which makes me wonder about the strength of the survey. Ah well....

A true Libertarian on the SCMB?! YES! Finally! :)

[York Hunt]

+2 on economic matters and a "true libertarian?"

I don't think so.

[HibachiDG]

Economic Left/Right: 5.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.15

economic freedom is almost always beneficial.

people get too idealist and emotional about certain issues.

freedom is best.

most people forget that the luxuries of the rich are often eventaully produced more cheaply and then made available to the masses.

if there was no rich elite to buy expensive things, they would never be developed and the lower classes would not benefit.

Do you think dirt poor people would have come up with the microwave oven? Vaccines? cell phones?

Please. Having a rich segment of society is beneficial for everybody.

but no...people are pissed and jealous.....

memo: save money and get rich, morons.

this board is full of socialists.

it seems you'd rather everybody be poor than some rich, some poor, and a HUGE middle class.

American liberalism is a complete sham

This is such a naive outlook on things. So, should we just accept this as the way it is because you seem to think it works and if it is not broke, don't fix it? Or, why not strive for a society that has some rich, some poor but with growth potential and a huge middle class that can take their shots at becoming rich? Before you can make a statement such as american liberalism being a complete sham, shouldn't you at least get some sort of base understanding of American liberalism rather than just twisting concepts in your own mind? I know I'm certainly not jealous of the rich, desiring opportunity for all to get a piece of the pie is certainly not built out of jealousy.

if the government stepped in a told IBM that they were getting too rich and to give some profits away instead of investing in R& D do you think we'd be on the internet having this discussion? The answer is of course "no."

Really? Because putting more people into a position to be competitive is going to lead to a slow down in the development of technology?

I'd write more, but Mush has stated he's going to embarass you

[Montrovant]

A person doesn't have to be rich to invent something. Production, however, can be a different proposition. Just responding to the assertion that poor people could not up with new technological ideas.

[Tarkus]

memo: save money and get rich, morons.

this board is full of socialists.

it seems you'd rather everybody be poor than some rich, some poor, and a HUGE middle class.

American liberalism is a complete sham

Which # do you think???

I'm goin' with #16 with a dash of #1 with a topping of #17...:P

http://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=15012

Welcome to the boards...no matter how short the stay...:thumbup:

[Peter North]

It's an interesting survey.

Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.05

[York Hunt]

why not strive for a society that has some rich, some poor but with growth potential and a huge middle class that can take their shots at becoming rich?

That's what we have now and it's working quite well.

Before you can make a statement such as american liberalism being a complete sham, shouldn't you at least get some sort of base understanding of American liberalism rather than just twisting concepts in your own mind? I know I'm certainly not jealous of the rich, desiring opportunity for all to get a piece of the pie is certainly not built out of jealousy.

I said "American liberalism" precisely so people wouldn't get it confused with classical liberalism. Why are you assuming I don't know what those things are? And maybe you're not jealous but most are. I wasn't directing that comment at you personally.

Really? Because putting more people into a position to be competitive is going to lead to a slow down in the development of technology?

What do you mean, "putting people into a position. I see a problem right there. People are supposed to PUT THEMSELVES into a position to be competitive. I think maybe you're one of those people that believe the government exists to wipe everybody's ass and be mommy. If I'm wrong, forgive me but those little clues always seem to point to a socialist.

i don't even understand your point anyway. I never said competition was a bad thing. Care to explain?

[York Hunt]

Which # do you think???

I'm goin' with #16 with a dash of #1 with a topping of #17...:P

http://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=15012

Welcome to the boards...no matter how short the stay...:thumbup:

What are you implying, that I'll be banned because I disagree with the lefties here? Why is that boards run by left wingers are almost exclusively run in a fascist manner?

If I don't agree with most on this board, you should welcome that challenge to the prevailing ideas. If you knew first amendment theory you would realize that even if what I'm saying seems totally offensive to you, it may contain some truth. Also, if it is indeed totally wrong, it can only make your arguments more valid. The fact that many won't even allow differing opinions is straight up laughable and well, fascist in form.

I'm not personally attacking anybody. If I am banned for stating my opinions, well, you do the math.

[York Hunt]

A person doesn't have to be rich to invent something. Production, however, can be a different proposition. Just responding to the assertion that poor people could not up with new technological ideas.

I don't disagree with you but let's forget the theoretical. Give me some concrete examples.

[Peter North]

Economically (and, well, socially too) speaking, we are so far off from founder's intentions that is a complete joke. Anyone speaking differently is either disingenous, ill-informed, or just plain dull. The level of taxation we have is sick as hell. It's disgraceful, it's a sham, and it's leading to the rapid demise of the country.

The governement exists to provide the most BASIC and fundamental services to the people, not to be a tit for feebs to latch onto for dear life.

[KevinBeane]

Well York, you have indeed broken the code - has user inthenet can tell you, we do ban everyone who disagrees with lefties - and certainly nothing is more important in society today than the consistency of a sports message board run by Some Guy.

What I object to is the faux honesty. You come in here guns a-blazin, call us socialists and our ideas shams based on raw numbers from an unscientfic quiz, and then you try to claim the moral high ground? Yeah, you're not to ruffle feathers at all, no sir, you just want to DEBATE.

P.S. I can't prove it, but I'm quite certain you are just a reincarnation (and perhaps not the first reincarnation) of a banned user - or at least, your type has the amazing coincidental ability to pop up just when another feather-ruffler has just gotten banned, making the exact same points. If this isn't true in your case, disregard it. If it is true (and only you really know if it is), what does that say about you and your life and your priorities that you keep coming back? But wait. That can't be true. Only my side is dishonest. Y'know, "lie-berals."

P.P.S. For everyone else on the board: If you think that anyone is trolling or not debating in good faith, please ignore them even if you really want to engage them. If they aren't noticeably p*ssing anyone off or getting even a mild reaction out of anyone, then they go away.

(P.P.P.S. Next up from York: How DARE you accuse me of these things? How DARE you?!)

[HibachiDG]

That's what we have now and it's working quite well.

Yeah, but there is a difference between what I described and what you originally described.

I said "American liberalism" precisely so people wouldn't get it confused with classical liberalism. Why are you assuming I don't know what those things are? And maybe you're not jealous but most are. I wasn't directing that comment at you personally.


I know you didn't mean to direct it at me personally, but reality is that you painted with a rather broad brush there in the line about jealousy. I disagree that for most this is something that stems from jealousy. As for the first part, I didn't assume anything, I made a response based on what you wrote. If it winds up wrong, it winds up wrong. I phrased it as such in an attempt to flesh more out of you. Your first post was rather choppy, loose, I responded how I did hoping to see a base of where you're coming from.

What do you mean, "putting people into a position. I see a problem right there. People are supposed to PUT THEMSELVES into a position to be competitive. I think maybe you're one of those people that believe the government exists to wipe everybody's ass and be mommy. If I'm wrong, forgive me but those little clues always seem to point to a socialist.

There's a huge difference between the government helping everyone wipe their asses and the government forgetting about people. Sometimes you need to take a look at why people are rich, middle class, poor. Sometimes you need to present the opportunity for people to take the opportunity. I agree that people are/should put themselves into an opportunity to be successfull, which is why I don't think the government should step into a position to take that away through inaction.

i don't even understand your point anyway. I never said competition was a bad thing. Care to explain?

It's not so much that I think you believe competition is a bad thing. Getting back to your original point, I'll attempt to explain myself better through responding again...

if the government stepped in a told IBM that they were getting too rich and to give some profits away instead of investing in R& D do you think we'd be on the internet having this discussion? The answer is of course "no."

To think that the answer to this question is no is to take the route that the internet only developed because particular companies had in their sights financial gain and if you slow that financial gain then you halt growth. This is a pretty low-level and shortsighted way to look at economics. The only answer to the question you posed an emphatic yes. The internet would have still come about, hell might have happened quicker if you have more people able to work with it. The point isn't to move away from a free market, the point is to establish a market that can truly be free. It's not that I think you're against competition, it's that I don't believe based on your initial posts that you and I have the same idea of competition. I gather from what you wrote that you believe in a fairly limited idea of competition.

To me, it seems like you want to come at this from a pure capitalist approach and anything but that winds up as socialism. Which I just don't see as the case. I don't think the United States economy when at its most successful points has been purely capitalist. I certainly don't want to advocate a socialist economy, but rather more of the typical capitalist society with restraints. Which is what we have had. Are we moving to a more purely capitalistic society over the past 5 years? Yes and I think the gap between the middle class and the rich is expanding, which does not exactly fit into a free market.

[tobynosker]

Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.38

[Peter North]

I agree that people are/should put themselves into an opportunity to be successfull, which is why I don't think the government should step into a position to take that away through inaction.

Read that to yourself very slowly and very carefully.

Not quite on par with "depends on what the definition of 'is' is," but it's not too far off.


Understand that the Government was never designed or intended to have gotten into 90% of the crap that they are into. The Gov was intended to be "inactive" from the start. What we have now is a large segment of the country that is dependent on the Gov., and it's sick, really really sick.

The land of the free and the home of the brave, not the land of the bound and the home of the dependent.

[HibachiDG]

But, what you don't understand is that this is not an issue of dependency. There are things that the government is responsible for. Education, protection, it's not about dependancy that people place on the government. You're taking a position against a majority because a minority of who we're talking about are dependent on the Government, it seems.

[Peter North]

Most definitely citizens should expect to be taxed for education and protection.

It should not be wasteful, however. What we have now is GROSS waste. Off the charts waste. Sickening waste. CRAZY and utterly counterproductive waste.

Are you, for example, in favor of public tax money going toward day-care centers in high schools? Some students have gotten pregnant, and they "need" day care for their child(ren). Should mr taxpayer foot that bill?

[KevinBeane]

Are you, for example, in favor of public tax money going toward day-care centers in high schools? Some students have gotten pregnant, and they "need" day care for their child(ren). Should mr taxpayer foot that bill?

I am. I assume you are not. So let me ask you a counter-question. 2-parter:

1) If there were no government funding for such programs, would you be okay with the babies of said pregnant teens dying of treatable diseases because there was no money available for such treatment, now that the govt. has stopped subsidizing it? It might teach them a lesson, make them think twice about risky activity like teen sex.

2) Are you okay with the idea that the rich kids who make the same mistakes as the poor kids do not have to pay the consquences the poor kids suffer, because few if any wealthy grandparent is gonna put their kids/grandkids through the sort of school of hard knocks you insist that poor people go through?

If you answer yes to these, I think you neatly illustrate the difference between liberals and conservatives: Every man for himself vs. Caring about others, even others who make stupid mistakes. God, we are such awful, awful people. Imagine, not spitting on a impovershed pregnant teen!

[RavenPoe]

Where is inthenet? Why isn't he in here throwing down some support for the newcomer? lol

Isn't right-wing idealism an oxymoron?

[Richard the Lionheart]

Just because the Federal government doesn't or shouldn't provide funds for a program doesn't mean that the state governments and charitable organizations can't. I don't think any more babies would be "dying" as a result of budget cuts. I think that's closer to the true difference between conservatives and liberals.

[buckeyefan78]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.46

Someone explain my results please.

Easy...you're a typical conservative Confederate bastard that makes my life that much harder. :P

Countin' down the days til it's nothin' but me, the clear blue Pacific (somewhere between Berkeley and the Ventura County line), plus an unlimited supply of Pearl Jam and weed...

Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.46

Maybe I'll kidnap mush and show him how it's done. :thumbup:

[KevinBeane]

Just because the Federal government doesn't or shouldn't provide funds for a program doesn't mean that the state governments and charitable organizations can't. I don't think any more babies would be "dying" as a result of budget cuts. I think that's closer to the true difference between conservatives and liberals.

I did use a dramatic example. That said, I think it's obvious that many people have a great deal of contempt for what is often characterized as crack-addled welfare moms who are cutting into their tax return, and really would not mind a bit if they were made to pay the ultimate of consequences for their slacking, lazy ways or whatever. It's kind of similar to you were saying earlier in the white supremacists thread about how they would hate blacks regardless, that it's a personal thing rather than the political thing that they dress it up as.

I don't mind if welfare became a state responsibility rather than a federal one. I just want to ensure everyone - even the lazy people - don't either starve to death or don't get the medical care they need because of monetary reasons. That's my absolute bottom line, and what (IMO) is the ultimate indicator of an advanced, developed nation vs. a third world country. Similarly, the place where I completely part ways with a lot of liberals is in their support of Cuba and Castro. How can ANYONE endorse a government where people are trying to escape it on RAFTS? That's a bottom line, an indicator that trumps all else.

[Tarkus]

What are you implying, that I'll be banned because I disagree with the lefties here? Why is that boards run by left wingers are almost exclusively run in a fascist manner?

Implying? Nah, I was quite clear actually. Just commenting on your trollish approach, not the content...

If I don't agree with most on this board, you should welcome that challenge to the prevailing ideas. If you knew first amendment theory you would realize that even if what I'm saying seems totally offensive to you, it may contain some truth. Also, if it is indeed totally wrong, it can only make your arguments more valid. The fact that many won't even allow differing opinions is straight up laughable and well, fascist in form.

I smell an agenda, not a debate, that's all...

I'm not personally attacking anybody. If I am banned for stating my opinions, well, you do the math.

No, you're not. Just that the obvious walkin' the fine line to make it seem like you're not...:P

As far as doin' the math. That's why I used #s in my previous post. Only tryin' to help you with yours...:thumbup:

[The Pirate Bob]

God I love Xmas time, it puts everyone in such good spirits. I propose everyone gets one mulligan this week just to honor the spirit of the season.

By the way, isn't interesting how you never know where a post will lead us. A simple quiz like this really got the old political blood flowing. Dang, I love this country!

[York Hunt]

Yeah, but there is a difference between what I described and what you originally described.

How?





The idea of jealousy is as old as the ancient Greeks.

People in America are spoiled as all hell yet they still complain. If it's not plain old jealousy, then what is it?


[QUOTE]There's a huge difference between the government helping everyone wipe their asses and the government forgetting about people. Sometimes you need to take a look at why people are rich, middle class, poor.

I do take a look at that. It's tough to grow up poor and become rich but it can be done and it needs to be done by the person, not the government.

Sometimes you need to present the opportunity for people to take the opportunity. I agree that people are/should put themselves into an opportunity to be successfull, which is why I don't think the government should step into a position to take that away through inaction.

I see what you're driving at but that's not how things are. The government helps people in tons of ways.

It's not so much that I think you believe competition is a bad thing. Getting back to your original point, I'll attempt to explain myself better through responding again...

I think competition is a GREAT thing. I have no idea where you'd get the idea that I think otherwise.



To think that the answer to this question is no is to take the route that the internet only developed because particular companies had in their sights financial gain and if you slow that financial gain then you halt growth.

That's not all I said. That's only one part of it. The main point is that the government didn't step in to prevent the growth of the corporation due to some offensive socialist agenda. Therefore, the corporation pulled far ahead, developed awwesome technology and that eventually trickled down tob the middle and lower classes.

This is a pretty low-level and shortsighted way to look at economics.

You cherry picked what I was saying or maybe I didn't make myself clear.

The only answer to the question you posed an emphatic yes. The internet would have still come about, hell might have happened quicker if you have more people able to work with it.

That's absurd.

The point isn't to move away from a free market, the point is to establish a market that can truly be free. It's not that I think you're against competition, it's that I don't believe based on your initial posts that you and I have the same idea of competition. I gather from what you wrote that you believe in a fairly limited idea of competition.

Well, you're incorrect.

To me, it seems like you want to come at this from a pure capitalist approach and anything but that winds up as socialism.

That's not what I said.

Which I just don't see as the case. I don't think the United States economy when at its most successful points has been purely capitalist.

I didn't say it was. We've had a mixed economy for a very long time.

I certainly don't want to advocate a socialist economy, but rather more of the typical capitalist society with restraints. Which is what we have had. Are we moving to a more purely capitalistic society over the past 5 years? Yes and I think the gap between the middle class and the rich is expanding, which does not exactly fit into a free market.

"the gap between the rich and middle class increasing" is a load of total crap.

Prove it.

first, define what you mean by "rich" and "middle class"

then, show how the "gap" is widening.

I hate those stupid Marixt platitudes with a passion.

[York Hunt]

God I love Xmas time, it puts everyone in such good spirits. I propose everyone gets one mulligan this week just to honor the spirit of the season.

By the way, isn't interesting how you never know where a post will lead us. A simple quiz like this really got the old political blood flowing. Dang, I love this country!


RACK this guy.

I'd venture to guess that Pirate Bob is over 45.

In other words, he gets it. He's lived live and learned through empirical observation how things really work. He doesn't believe what the "intelligentisa" are telling you to believe. He doesn't cry "MODS, MAKE THEM SHUT UP BECAUSE THEY AREN'T SAYING WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR!!!!"

[HibachiDG]

How?

The difference is that in what you originally said, you isolated the classes. What I said involves bridging the classes.

People in America are spoiled as all hell yet they still complain. If it's not plain old jealousy, then what is it?

There are a lot of people satisfied with where they are at that want to see people below them given an opportunity. That's not a jealousy thing, I don't see how it can be. There are a lot of rich people who want to do it as well, certainly you don't think that drives out of jealousy, right?

I do take a look at that. It's tough to grow up poor and become rich but it can be done and it needs to be done by the person, not the government.

I don't disagree that it can be done and is done a lot. I'm not even advocating the government to pull someone up on their own. The only thing I'm arguing for is the government to present aspects of the playing field. It's not as cut and dry as one position of assistance and one position as no assistance.

I think competition is a GREAT thing. I have no idea where you'd get the idea that I think otherwise.

I got the idea from your words. I think I mentioned that it's not that I don't think you don't like competition, it is that you and I have different notions of what competition should be.

You cherry picked what I was saying or maybe I didn't make myself clear.

I don't think it's either. Well, it may be the latter, but that's not really my concern. The point is, from your writings here, I think you have a very basic understanding of economics and certainly struggle on the application side of things. If you manage to correct that from here on out, I'm fine with that, but, that's the impression that I get from these initial postings. I am more convinced of this with your next two answers when I talked about your IBM scenario.

That's absurd.
Well, you're incorrect.

I'm just overwhelmed with the feeling that you know your personal economics and have seen a couple of theories and, like I said before, just struggle to apply it.

That's not what I said.

Then why all the socialist, petty name calling?

"the gap between the rich and middle class increasing" is a load of total crap.

Prove it.

I'm not going to sit here and do your work for you. If you don't believe that the rich and middle class gap is increasing, then make your arguments about it. The comment of "prove it" is a grasping crutch to try and bail out of an argument. My opinion has been formed over the past 3-4 years, there's no one thing that I can point to to prove this. I know Alan Greenspan has commented on it, and I certainly will admit that he knows more to the whole proving it end than I do, so you may want to start by doing some research on the issue first. That's usually a good place to begin. Simply telling me to prove it rather than providing an argument is simply weak.

Why do you think people are calling you a troll or saying that mods should get involved with your posts? You blast them for that, but when someone actually takes the time to respond to you (myself) you want to pass off all of the legwork to that person.

I can speak all night about the difference between rich and poor and middle class in this country. But, I want certain reassurances that I'm not simply going to talk into a brick wall before I do that. Discussion is usually a two way street, but you want things to be one way. All I've really seen you done thus far is throw some things out there, rip some folks for being socialist, and then when you get called for your comments back off your comments. If you don't want people to complain to mods about your behavior, you might want to just try some substance.

[grifter]

Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64

Cool I'm around Nelson Mandela

[webdog]

6 pages to know what political affiliation I am? No thanks.

[York Hunt]

I'm not going to sit here and do your work for you. If you don't believe that the rich and middle class gap is increasing, then make your arguments about it.


You made a claim. back it up with facts or stfu.


The comment of "prove it" is...

asking you to prove what you claim.


Why do you think people are calling you a troll or saying that mods should get involved with your posts? You blast them for that, but when someone actually takes the time to respond to you (myself) you want to pass off all of the legwork to that person.

You made a claim and when called realize you can't back it up.

Now you're in full spin mode.

Priceless.

I can speak all night about the difference between rich and poor and middle class in this country.

apparently you can't. You claim you won't "do my legwork" yet you'll post this huge meltdown.

All you had to do was give a few facts or stats to back up your claim.

It's obvious to anybody in attendance that you are unable to do so.

All I've really seen you done thus far is throw some things out there, rip some folks for being socialist, and then when you get called for your comments back off your comments. If you don't want people to complain to mods about your behavior, you might want to just try some substance.

Why not back up your claim instead of spending hours examining what I do?

Nice try putting all the focus back on me, but it's YOU that can't back up your claim.

I don't care if you're 100% convinced I don't know what I'm talking about, you can't back up what you said and you know it.

I know it.

You know it

the whole board knows it.

good day

[HibachiDG]

Well, given how things have gone, I'm pretty sure the board already thought that you were a troll and given your interactions with me, most of the board was probably able to confirm any suspicions that they have. The reality is that you want things to be one way. I'm not going to sit here and have a one sided discussion until you're able to show that you want to contribute to a discussion rather than simply play games.

Like I said before, I'm willing to discuss the point I made with anyone willing to discuss it. Do you honestly feel you've put yourself in that position? To have a serious discussion on something? Please. Do that first, then maybe folks will give a damn.

EDIT...this took me 30 seconds to find...https://cia.gov/cia//publications/factbook/geos/us.html

"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

It is certainly just the tip of the iceberg, but just want to throw it out there that I'm not ducking anything you're throwing. I also mentioned previously that I've read quotes from Greenspan on the issue, I'm sure I could google those up for you, but is it really necessary? The next step would be to get into the household incomes at various levels and the changes/similarities to 25 years ago. As well, the type of jobs available in this country now compared to just a few years ago, to go with that, the type of benefits that go along with these jobs, how many hours Americans are working, at what wages. I didn't just pull that statement out of thin air, it's something that I've developed over years of this sort of thing. Again, it doesn't seem like you truly want to discuss this, but I really am hoping that I am wrong on that and you'll begin to have an actual discussion, rather than what you're currently doing. Like you said, we've got a lot of lefties on the board here, as one of them, I just want more good conservatives to take part in some actual discussion, rather than the nonsense you've brought thus far.

[MajorPirate]

I scored right next to Hitler!!!

[York Hunt]

Well, given how things have gone, I'm pretty sure the board already thought that you were a troll and given your interactions with me, most of the board was probably able to confirm any suspicions that they have. The reality is that you want things to be one way. I'm not going to sit here and have a one sided discussion until you're able to show that you want to contribute to a discussion rather than simply play games.

Like I said before, I'm willing to discuss the point I made with anyone willing to discuss it. Do you honestly feel you've put yourself in that position? To have a serious discussion on something? Please. Do that first, then maybe folks will give a damn.

EDIT...this took me 30 seconds to find...https://cia.gov/cia//publications/factbook/geos/us.html

"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

It is certainly just the tip of the iceberg, but just want to throw it out there that I'm not ducking anything you're throwing. I also mentioned previously that I've read quotes from Greenspan on the issue, I'm sure I could google those up for you, but is it really necessary? The next step would be to get into the household incomes at various levels and the changes/similarities to 25 years ago. As well, the type of jobs available in this country now compared to just a few years ago, to go with that, the type of benefits that go along with these jobs, how many hours Americans are working, at what wages. I didn't just pull that statement out of thin air, it's something that I've developed over years of this sort of thing. Again, it doesn't seem like you truly want to discuss this, but I really am hoping that I am wrong on that and you'll begin to have an actual discussion, rather than what you're currently doing. Like you said, we've got a lot of lefties on the board here, as one of them, I just want more good conservatives to take part in some actual discussion, rather than the nonsense you've brought thus far.


That's your proof? One little blurb in the CIA World Factbook?

Let's assume that the top 20% are pulling very far ahead, even though this makes no mention of how much more the alleged top 20% is making. Perhaps the gains are negligible?

Perhaps that was true but hasn't been for several years.

But let's assume this proves your point, which it doesn't:

Who gives a fat mother****ing owl cock?

If I was poor and believed many others were getting richer, I'd work harder if I wanted to keep pace. I certainly wouldn't take some pansy attitude that the government should tax the rich more or help me more. I'd get off my malt liquor drinkin' ho callin' meth smokin' spendthriftin' goldbrickin' ass and make things happen.

Truth is, not everybody feels comfortable with responsibility. Those people are called "p u s s i e s."

[themush]

What Is A Troll?
The term derives from "trolling", a style of fishing which involves trailing bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The troll posts a message, often in response to an honest question, that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group.

Usually, it will fail, as the troll rarely bothers to match the tone or style of the group, and usually its ignorance shows.:thumbup:

[The Pirate Bob]

I scored right next to Hitler!!!


You are a disgrace to your name then. You are definitely no pirate!

[Red Rover]

Were it not for Al Gore, none of us would be on the internet, so be thankful for Al Gore regardless of your view on politics.

[York Hunt]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the gap that is allegedly expanding between the rich and middle classes doesn't "fit" with free markets.

:rotfl:

[Peter North]

Peter North asks: Are you, for example, in favor of public tax money going toward day-care centers in high schools? Some students have gotten pregnant, and they "need" day care for their child(ren). Should mr taxpayer foot that bill?

I am. I assume you are not. So let me ask you a counter-question. 2-parter:

You DO think mr taxpayer should foot the bill. Your view is terribly childish.

Schools should be wheechair and handicap friendly, because some citizens are unfortunately disabled.

Getting knocked up by your boyfriend at age 16 does not qualify as a disability.

It qualifies as an idiotic CHOICE.

CHOICE, CHOICE, CHOICE, CHOICE!!!!!!!!!

You are telling mr taxpayer that he has to pony up because of an idiotic CHOICE that an idiotic citizen made?

Fugg that, man. Stop being an idiot, citizen. THAT is the answer.

If that child gets ill and dies I look at it as Darwin at work -- thinning out the herd. I feel no pain.

Why would you ask me to differentiate between rich kids making dumb mistakes and poor kids making dumb mistakes?

If a rich kid gets knocked up and has a security net of a grandmother (or someone) to take care of the child, so be it. That's the way the game goes. Not everyone has the same situation in life. I can't have things the way Bill Gates does. I have certain hardships that he does not have. So should the Gov. step in and fix my difficulities so that I am up to his level?

The government was never intended to do most of what it is doing. Liberals got loose in governement and have crapped all over society with their goofy limp-wristed programs.

Personal accountability. Personal responsibility.

That's where real men are.

[Ravana]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.26

Surprise surprise, I'm a radical leftist! :thumbup:

With that score, you're a freakin' socialist! ;) I'd say "Marxist," but your social libertarian score is too far to the left... though they talked a good fight, most of them were actually more authoritarian than they wanted to appear—Marx himself included.

[Ravana]

A true Libertarian on the SCMB?! YES! Finally! :)

Thanks, Ricky. And, yes, I am. (Finally, Ravana divulges some personal information! Mark the date on your calendar! :lol: )

[Ravana]

+2 on economic matters and a "true libertarian?"

I don't think so.

Well, I did say I found the results—and thus the entire test—suspect, based on that low score....

[York Hunt]

I want to give out some major RACKS to Peter North for making a lot of sense.

The government does NOT exist to wipe asses. And if you feel it does, you're displaying a very pansy point of view.

[Ravana]

I'm guessing that's a universal "you," York, not a specific one?

[MajorPirate]

You are a disgrace to your name then. You are definitely no pirate!

Speak for yourself, ghey pirate, ya rear admirals cabin boy on the good ship baloon knot pop!!:thumbup:

[BigBuddhaPup]

God I love Xmas time, it puts everyone in such good spirits. I propose everyone gets one mulligan this week just to honor the spirit of the season.

By the way, isn't interesting how you never know where a post will lead us. A simple quiz like this really got the old political blood flowing. Dang, I love this country!



I am not surprised by the partisan bickering that the poll caused...I was more interested in what where people fell on the spectrum...

It amuses me the passive/aggressive approach of some posters...

[RavenPoe]

BBP,

Glad to see you back. I trust you had a good Christmas?

[BigBuddhaPup]

BBP,

Glad to see you back. I trust you had a good Christmas?


Yep, it twas a good one...

Steelers were finished... but that happens:( , I will cherish the Super Bowl XL championship for a few months...and pull for the underdogs in the playoffs...


I hope you and everyone else had a wonderful X-mas as well...

[CKFresh]

York Hunt

If "American liberalism" is all about jealousy, how would you explain all of the very rich liberals in this country? There are millions of people in this country who are very rich and still support liberal ideals. COuld it be that liberals are just a tad bit more compassionate than conservatives? I am not rich, and social welfare programs don't really benefit me in anyway. Yet I am more than willing to pay higher taxes and support a system that doesn't piss on the poor. To say that "American liberalism is a sham" shows that you either know nothing about the philosophy or that you are so blinded by your own political leanings that you can't see any middle ground. I would never make such an assinine statement about conservative thought, because I realize that things aren't always black and white, there is a grey area most of the time. To asssume that "I am right and you are wrong" shows that you are either 10 years old and need to learn a lot more about politics, or that you are completely brain-washed and unable to see any semblence of truth.

[BigBuddhaPup]

You liberals with your forward looking ways make me sick... If I was sick in a liberal country, I would get free healthcare too... How dare they!... Volvo drivin', sushi eatin', gay marriage lovin' socialists... Now they want to bring our soldiers home, for no good reason, everyone knows that soldiers are meant to fight for no good reason... We need to fight for those stem cells, keep them from being exploited to help others, we have to save those microscopic cells!... Rich deserve to be richer, it is the impoverished fault that they are poor... Survival of the fittest, even though Darwinism is wrong....

Liberalism is a sham! We need to stick to dogma no matter what, traditions and the past are always the best... if you think differently, move to France and eat some brie...take in a show...I disgress...be a surrender monkey!...

Neo-Cons Rule,
BBP

[CKFresh]

Hahahahaha, I'm still laughing BBP. That was an exact replica of many of the people on these boards. HAHAHAHAH

[CKFresh]

Oh here's "where I stand"

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.87

[BigBuddhaPup]

Oh here's "where I stand"

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.87


Pinko! Commie! Socialist!


Me too...*L*

Economic Left: -5.63
Social Libertarian: -7.44

[Heathen]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

Next to Ghandi and the Dali Lama :D

[CKFresh]

I don't like how we are NEGATIVE in the numbers. That's a little bit poopy

[BigBuddhaPup]

CKFresh,

Maybe it is that we run against conservative(traditional) thinking... or it is just a graph and someone has to be negative x/y axis...

"Poopy"...*L*